Article: I’m sorry, Singapore
Link to article: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_273461.html
Adapted from: The Straits Times, Saturday, 30th August 2008
“I sincerely apologise,” said Ms Lee Bee Wah, president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association, on 29th August 2008, Friday. Just 5 days after the women table tennis triumphed and took silver in the recently-concluded Olympics held in Beijing, China, Ms Lee threatened to sack team manager Antony Lee and national head coach Liu GuoDong as she had been angry after Singapore top male table tennis player Gao Ning had to play without a coach on the sidelines during the Olympic Games as his assigned coach had been held up at an earlier match which overran.
Spreading like bush fire, her remarks resulted in a major confusion among the people. This turned out to upset the celebration mood of the Singaporeans and she was forced to make a public apology, which would supposedly mark the end of this crisis. However, it did not mean that this controversy was entirely over and done with.
Firstly we must think that was it really worth it to let these relatively small matters become such a major disturbance? Just because of some bad management and carelessness on the coaches and team manager’s part, was it really wise to threaten to kick them out of the nation team, overlooking all of their achievements and contributions to Singapore, especially when the female table tennis team had just won silver? Her remarks had definitely added oil to the flames of criticisms of the coaches and team manager.
Secondly, she had proved herself to be irresponsible as she was unable to consider the impact of this commotion on the Singapore team, Singapore table-tennis association, the people of Singapore, as well as Singapore itself, before making her remarks. This was especially embarrassing as the commotion had started not in Singapore, but in Beijing itself, so called “outside the doors of another country”. And this made it seem as if she was venting her own personal frustration, and her thoughtlessness also showed her incompetence in handling national affairs. What would representatives of other countries think when they saw her blow her top?
Also, her comments caused quite a great stir locally. Her remarks had hit hard among fellow Singaporeans, and were a pain to the table-tennis enthusiasts and common people alike who were still celebrating the success of Singapore team in 48 years. This had left a deep scar in the field of Singapore sports which would not be fully healed until a long time later.
This event had given us a glimpse of the so-called “sports politics” in Singapore. I could not deny the fact that the head coach and team manage had indeed placed priority on the female table tennis team, because they had higher chances of winning a medal in the Olympics. In theory, they should have the same emphasis so as to be fair. Maybe that was why Ms Wee flared up at them. However, it was not entirely the coaches’ fault. In fact, who wouldn’t?
However, Ms Lee made the right move as she tried to cover up her “mistake” by apologising to the entire Singapore, even though she had already lost the trust from many Singaporeans. It seemed that she finally understood that a lot was at stake.
But this is “sports politics”. One wrong move and you’re out, sooner or later.
Adapted from: The Straits Times, Saturday, 30th August 2008
“I sincerely apologise,” said Ms Lee Bee Wah, president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association, on 29th August 2008, Friday. Just 5 days after the women table tennis triumphed and took silver in the recently-concluded Olympics held in Beijing, China, Ms Lee threatened to sack team manager Antony Lee and national head coach Liu GuoDong as she had been angry after Singapore top male table tennis player Gao Ning had to play without a coach on the sidelines during the Olympic Games as his assigned coach had been held up at an earlier match which overran.
Spreading like bush fire, her remarks resulted in a major confusion among the people. This turned out to upset the celebration mood of the Singaporeans and she was forced to make a public apology, which would supposedly mark the end of this crisis. However, it did not mean that this controversy was entirely over and done with.
Firstly we must think that was it really worth it to let these relatively small matters become such a major disturbance? Just because of some bad management and carelessness on the coaches and team manager’s part, was it really wise to threaten to kick them out of the nation team, overlooking all of their achievements and contributions to Singapore, especially when the female table tennis team had just won silver? Her remarks had definitely added oil to the flames of criticisms of the coaches and team manager.
Secondly, she had proved herself to be irresponsible as she was unable to consider the impact of this commotion on the Singapore team, Singapore table-tennis association, the people of Singapore, as well as Singapore itself, before making her remarks. This was especially embarrassing as the commotion had started not in Singapore, but in Beijing itself, so called “outside the doors of another country”. And this made it seem as if she was venting her own personal frustration, and her thoughtlessness also showed her incompetence in handling national affairs. What would representatives of other countries think when they saw her blow her top?
Also, her comments caused quite a great stir locally. Her remarks had hit hard among fellow Singaporeans, and were a pain to the table-tennis enthusiasts and common people alike who were still celebrating the success of Singapore team in 48 years. This had left a deep scar in the field of Singapore sports which would not be fully healed until a long time later.
This event had given us a glimpse of the so-called “sports politics” in Singapore. I could not deny the fact that the head coach and team manage had indeed placed priority on the female table tennis team, because they had higher chances of winning a medal in the Olympics. In theory, they should have the same emphasis so as to be fair. Maybe that was why Ms Wee flared up at them. However, it was not entirely the coaches’ fault. In fact, who wouldn’t?
However, Ms Lee made the right move as she tried to cover up her “mistake” by apologising to the entire Singapore, even though she had already lost the trust from many Singaporeans. It seemed that she finally understood that a lot was at stake.
But this is “sports politics”. One wrong move and you’re out, sooner or later.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
English Language Blog Entry 2
“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
Democracy nowadays has been adapted by various nations or states as their political system. In this essay, I will establish my stand that I do not agree that democracy creates stability in society to a large extent, also explaining and analyzing this topic.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines democracy as “a situation or a system in which everyone is equal and has the right to vote, make decisions, etc.” Stability in society relies on a number of factors, including political, social and economic factors.
A democratic government cannot ensure economical stability as it cannot specifically restrict the people to certain ways to increase the nation-state’s economic power, unlike dictatorship. In this case, dictatorship is preferred over democracy as the government will actually decide the ways which will generate the most growth in the economy.
However, democracy brings about some societal stability. Everyone in the society gets equal rights and is able to vote for the government that he or she wants to be ruled by. Hence, the society will most probably choose a government which the people think will fulfill their necessities and wishes. Here, democracy helps the society socially in the sense that it gives people a secure feeling that they are being ruled well, satisfying their needs and thus leading to fewer conflicts between the government and the people. Hence, the society is socially stable.
Being the major part of society, the people know the society and its social issues better than the government. For the government to make really good decisions to bring about positive changes in the society, they will need to seek the opinions of the people. This is where democracy comes in, whereby the people can vote and make decisions for the nation-state. In this case, the government makes the most-suitable decisions according to the people’s will, improving the situation in the nation-state and hence promoting stability in society.
However, this way of making major decisions for the welfare of the society may have some negative impacts on the society. Democracy enables the use of voting to make decisions for nation-states. This can sometimes result in vote fatigue, whereby many voters may decide not to participate in a vote and thus result in the non-majority group making decisions for the nation-state. This may result in instability in the society as the decisions do not really cater for most people, making them unhappy with the government.
Overall, I feel that democracy does not create stability in society. Time is essential for a decision-making government but in a democratic nation-state, the government is unable to make decisions fast because it has to count all the votes, as compared to other political structures such as dictatorship, whereby the government can make decisions in a short time. A democratic government cannot make decisions which cater to the society’s needs in time, promoting conflicts between the people and government. These conflicts result in instability in the society. Hence, I feel that democracy does not lead to societal stability.
(500 words)
Democracy nowadays has been adapted by various nations or states as their political system. In this essay, I will establish my stand that I do not agree that democracy creates stability in society to a large extent, also explaining and analyzing this topic.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines democracy as “a situation or a system in which everyone is equal and has the right to vote, make decisions, etc.” Stability in society relies on a number of factors, including political, social and economic factors.
A democratic government cannot ensure economical stability as it cannot specifically restrict the people to certain ways to increase the nation-state’s economic power, unlike dictatorship. In this case, dictatorship is preferred over democracy as the government will actually decide the ways which will generate the most growth in the economy.
However, democracy brings about some societal stability. Everyone in the society gets equal rights and is able to vote for the government that he or she wants to be ruled by. Hence, the society will most probably choose a government which the people think will fulfill their necessities and wishes. Here, democracy helps the society socially in the sense that it gives people a secure feeling that they are being ruled well, satisfying their needs and thus leading to fewer conflicts between the government and the people. Hence, the society is socially stable.
Being the major part of society, the people know the society and its social issues better than the government. For the government to make really good decisions to bring about positive changes in the society, they will need to seek the opinions of the people. This is where democracy comes in, whereby the people can vote and make decisions for the nation-state. In this case, the government makes the most-suitable decisions according to the people’s will, improving the situation in the nation-state and hence promoting stability in society.
However, this way of making major decisions for the welfare of the society may have some negative impacts on the society. Democracy enables the use of voting to make decisions for nation-states. This can sometimes result in vote fatigue, whereby many voters may decide not to participate in a vote and thus result in the non-majority group making decisions for the nation-state. This may result in instability in the society as the decisions do not really cater for most people, making them unhappy with the government.
Overall, I feel that democracy does not create stability in society. Time is essential for a decision-making government but in a democratic nation-state, the government is unable to make decisions fast because it has to count all the votes, as compared to other political structures such as dictatorship, whereby the government can make decisions in a short time. A democratic government cannot make decisions which cater to the society’s needs in time, promoting conflicts between the people and government. These conflicts result in instability in the society. Hence, I feel that democracy does not lead to societal stability.
(500 words)
Sunday, March 2, 2008
English language blog entry 1
Article: NZ teen hacker faces 10 years’ jail
Adapted from: The Straits Times, Saturday, 1st March 2008
Produced by: “Associated Press”
A New Zealander teenager was being charged with computer hacking crimes. Computer programmer Owen Thor Walker, 18, was arrested as part of an international investigation into a cyber crime network accused of infiltrating 1.3 million computers and skimming millions of dollars from victims’ bank accounts. The combined economic loss was estimated to be up to US$20million. The maximum penalty for him would be 10 years’ jail.
I think that the concept of this article was that people nowadays are coming into contact with computer technologies such as networking at a younger age. This article wrote about one implication of such occurrence, that teenagers who handled such technology may get themselves into trouble. In this case, the teenager is Owen Thor Walker from New Zealand, who had associated himself with a cyber crime network which created havoc to millions of computers.
This article was produced by “Associated Press”, an American news agency with wide influence in the media industry worldwide. In 2005, AP’s photography library consists of more than 10 million images. It operates 243 news bureaus and serves 121 countries, having employees from all over the world. This article is unlikely to have any error information or whatsoever, as AP had many information sources which provided information for the article.
When I read about this article, my first reaction was astonishment. Not only at the prodigious programming skills of which the teen had displayed, but also at the means of which he had decided to use his advanced programming skills. I always believe that the way a person acts is his choice. In this case, why did the teen choose to use his programming skills for criminal behaviours? I feel that this is a serious problem as it is possible that more and more teenagers will follow suit and misuse their programming skills.
I think that it may be due to the immature paradigm and the impulsive nature of a teenager, which resulted in Owen committing such an act.
As a teenager myself, I can fully understand the hormonal surges in a teenager’s body during puberty, which may result in mood swings and impulsiveness. It was possible that Owen decided to take part in the cyber crime network under such conditions, and he committed the crime without thinking much about the consequences of his actions.
Also, as Owen was a teenager, his mindset and thinking might be easily influenced by others, as he did not have a fixed paradigm yet. It was possible that Owen took part in the criminal activity partially due to the temptations from his friends and other social contacts.
One similar case would be the recent “Junior College Hacking Case” in Singapore, whereby the teenager had hacked the school’s computer system, only to take a glimpse at his peers’ results. Should he know about the seriousness of his actions and consequences, I am sure that he would have acted otherwise. Owen’s case might be a variation of that case.
Last but not least, I will like to express my views at the teen’s punishment. Quoted from Martin Kleintjes, head of the police electronic crime center in New Zealand, "He is very bright and very skilled in what he's doing." I think that it is rare for a teenage to have such a professional programming skill and I feel that Owen should be counselled or rehabilitated to prevent the waste of his talent in programming. I believe that Owen should be given a second chance. After all, every person makes mistakes.
The article can also be found online at:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NEWS28/71130014
Adapted from: The Straits Times, Saturday, 1st March 2008
Produced by: “Associated Press”
A New Zealander teenager was being charged with computer hacking crimes. Computer programmer Owen Thor Walker, 18, was arrested as part of an international investigation into a cyber crime network accused of infiltrating 1.3 million computers and skimming millions of dollars from victims’ bank accounts. The combined economic loss was estimated to be up to US$20million. The maximum penalty for him would be 10 years’ jail.
I think that the concept of this article was that people nowadays are coming into contact with computer technologies such as networking at a younger age. This article wrote about one implication of such occurrence, that teenagers who handled such technology may get themselves into trouble. In this case, the teenager is Owen Thor Walker from New Zealand, who had associated himself with a cyber crime network which created havoc to millions of computers.
This article was produced by “Associated Press”, an American news agency with wide influence in the media industry worldwide. In 2005, AP’s photography library consists of more than 10 million images. It operates 243 news bureaus and serves 121 countries, having employees from all over the world. This article is unlikely to have any error information or whatsoever, as AP had many information sources which provided information for the article.
When I read about this article, my first reaction was astonishment. Not only at the prodigious programming skills of which the teen had displayed, but also at the means of which he had decided to use his advanced programming skills. I always believe that the way a person acts is his choice. In this case, why did the teen choose to use his programming skills for criminal behaviours? I feel that this is a serious problem as it is possible that more and more teenagers will follow suit and misuse their programming skills.
I think that it may be due to the immature paradigm and the impulsive nature of a teenager, which resulted in Owen committing such an act.
As a teenager myself, I can fully understand the hormonal surges in a teenager’s body during puberty, which may result in mood swings and impulsiveness. It was possible that Owen decided to take part in the cyber crime network under such conditions, and he committed the crime without thinking much about the consequences of his actions.
Also, as Owen was a teenager, his mindset and thinking might be easily influenced by others, as he did not have a fixed paradigm yet. It was possible that Owen took part in the criminal activity partially due to the temptations from his friends and other social contacts.
One similar case would be the recent “Junior College Hacking Case” in Singapore, whereby the teenager had hacked the school’s computer system, only to take a glimpse at his peers’ results. Should he know about the seriousness of his actions and consequences, I am sure that he would have acted otherwise. Owen’s case might be a variation of that case.
Last but not least, I will like to express my views at the teen’s punishment. Quoted from Martin Kleintjes, head of the police electronic crime center in New Zealand, "He is very bright and very skilled in what he's doing." I think that it is rare for a teenage to have such a professional programming skill and I feel that Owen should be counselled or rehabilitated to prevent the waste of his talent in programming. I believe that Owen should be given a second chance. After all, every person makes mistakes.
The article can also be found online at:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NEWS28/71130014
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)