pearorange

This year’s Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme allows more talent pupils who excel in special areas like sports or the arts able to secure a place in the school of their dreams even before they took their PSLE last October.

Yes, it is like what Angela said in her blog “It would then be a win-win situation for the pupil and the school.” School can get students who can contribute to the school in areas like arts or sports. The students can win more prize medals for the school to maintain the school’s standard. At the same time, the students can improve academically due to the good learning environment of top schools.

Some people think it is unfair for those whom get better academic results. However, as the government emphasized, it is important to have talents in all areas. Students who are only study machines are useless for the society. For students who are talented in their special fields, it is understandable that such students may not do so well in their studies because they concentrate too much on sports or the arts.

Another problem that can arise from the scheme is whether the DSA students do deserve a place in the school. There is a case about a student who had talent in sports and he was admitted by one of the top schools though his academic results were not that good. However, he did not treasure the chance. He treated both his study and trainings unserious. His grades are low and he is not contributing to the school in sports, so how can school accept such a person? In this case, the school should expel the student.

Some people think top schools are always stressful, so the DSA students may not cope with the stress. At this point, I agree with Angela. The students need to consider seriously they applying for this programme, and if they have the determine to study hard, this won’t be a big problem.

In conclusion, I agree with Angela’ view, it is fair for talented pupils to be admitted to the better school thought DSA. The students also need to treasure the chance to study hard.
 http://www.gpinlalaland.blogspot.com/

It is hot topic of whether should we legalize the trade of human organs in the society. Some people support it due to the idea of saving more lives, while some people against the idea strongly as they think it is immoral.

Many people got kidney disease due to irregular diet, and the best way to cure it is kidney transplantation. However, not all the patients can pay for it. Also, the donated kidneys are not enough to meet the needs. Therefore, many people buy the kidneys though black market. The kidneys are from poor, they gain money by selling their organs.

Under this condition, I think we need solve the problems by legalizing the trade of organs. First, it can help to provide more supply of the organs for the needy people, in order to save more lives. Secondly, it can stop people from buying organs from black market. Thirdly, it can allow the seller to get some money to improve their living.

Some people said that it will harm the sellers’ health. I think this can be solved by the advanced medical technology.

Look at Iran, it is the only country of the world legalizes the trade of human organs, and this trading system is successful in Iran.

Therefore, I think it is practicable of legalizing the trade of human organs as we all know the value of lives.

Some people say that the death penalty is too barbaric, and sentencing a murderer will not bring the victim back to life. In addition, we should give chance to offenders in order to rehabilitate them. However, it is means that criminals are not always responsible for their acts if the death penalty has not been continued.

I think death penalty is logical for some unforgivable offences like killing another human being. It is right to deprive a person of his or her life. The death penalty is effective in deterring people from committing serious crimes. The existence of the death penalty is probably one of the reasons how people have been kept in line over the centuries.

The decent people are the majority in the society. It is reasonable to assume that the decent people must be protected from criminals. In Singapore, the death penalty is meted out freely to drug traffickers as most Singaporeans think that drug traffickers are mass murderers. They are willing to destroy lives and even kill innocent people just to enrich themselves. In countries where the death penalty has been done away with, the crime rate are high.

At least until such time that society can find a definite way to prevent or stop crime—the death sentence needs to be continued. The good and decent people in the society must be protected. To date, death penalty is the most effective way to prevent certain serious offences.

Should the press be completely free? I do not think so.

In communist countries, the press belongs to the state, only those things protects the state’ interests can be published. In most democratic countries, the press has a certain measure of freedom; it can raise its voice against the government.

However, when freedom is given to any one person or a group of persons, it should not encroach on the freedom of another person or another group of persons. Therefore, when the press is given complete freedom, it is like giving permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. Many newspapers will publish anything to sell copies. Certain newspaper reporters and editors will print anything as long as it furthers their careers. Sometimes they destroy public figures by spying into their private lives publishing news about them.

An example in point is the issue of singer Michael Jackson. The man did not even been charged in court for the purported offence. The newspaper reporters have almost destroyed him. They should be fair to him. However, all the newspapers just reported all sorts of suspicions. If this type of situation is already happening at present, when the newspapers are only partially free, what more will happen if they are given completely freedom can well be imaged.

Therefore, I think that the press should not be completely free as people will misuse it.

I read a newspaper article, which is about a woman in China, gave birth to her second child in countryside and it was be found by the authority. Then the child was not allowed to go to school and he will not get an identity card when he is 16 years old.

The similar thing happens in China almost everyday. It is because many people want to have a son to be the inheritor due to the tradition; they give birth to the second even third child if their first and second children are females. However, the “only one child” policy in China not allows them to do so.

China is a big country; it has 1.3 billion populations. A country’ population affect the economic development directly. Many parts of China are still undeveloped is mainly due to the huge population, and it has caused many problems. One of the problems is unemployment. These unemployed and often homeless people cause a lot of social problems. Another problem is the lack of resources. The larger population means more people need to be feed. At the same time what is happening, is that less and less land is available for farming. One grave consequence of this is the destruction of forests to create more farming land.

Therefore, people should understand the consequences of the large population, and be cooperated with the government, follow the “one child” policy. It is not only for their own good, but also for the whole country, and even for the whole world.

I think the use of torture is justified in dealing with criminal and terrorists, but the torture should be carried out in a proper way.

 
Many criminals and terrorists just refuse to admit guilt and refuse to provide information, which is useful for solving criminal cases. Without the information, many innocents may die. For example, a group of terrorists tried to attack the people in America, in order to breakdown the stability of America. They caught some innocents as hostages, hold them in an unknown location, and were threatening to kill them. A member of the group was then captured, but refused to disclose the whereabouts of the hostages and the rest of the group. At this time, torture should be used because it could help to solve the case and saved the lives of the innocents. In addition, it could let other Americans feel at ease, as the terrorists could no longer attack them since all the members of the group had been captured.

 
However, as what I said at beginning, torture should be carried out in a proper way which means that the authorities should not harm other people for example, the criminal’ wife and children. It is because only the criminal is responsible for the crime and it is no point for his wife and children to get torture. They are innocence.

 
In conclusion, I think the use of torture is justified in dealing with criminals if the torture is carried out in a proper way.

Blogging has become more and more popular in the modern world. The role of blogs become increasingly mainstream, as political consultants, news services and candidates began using them as tools for outreach and opinion forming. People love blogging because blogs are places where they can express their own opinions and emotions freely.

However, too much freedom may cause instability of a country. For example, there were two Singaporeans students had criticized other racial groups by using unsuitable words on their blogs. This had caused unhappiness among Malays. This should not happen in Singapore because it is not easy for us to achieve racial harmony and we need to maintain it carefully.  

At the same time, many terrorists used the new media to spread false information to people in order to break the collective will of free people. They try to break a country’s stability by using media.

To prevent any more happening of these things in the future, government of many countries have taken actions on controlling the internet, they censor websites, block emails, persecute and imprison bloggers. The government will ban any information on sensitive topics. However, these have caused unhappiness of lots of bloggers, and there are forces fighting back against the tide of internet censorship.

I think the government should return some freedom back to the bloggers. At the same time, bloggers should be careful on the words, which they used on the blogs; they need to avoid any sensitive topics, which may cause instability of our country.

I don not think that the media can ever be relied upon to convey the truth. It is because America does not truly have a “free press”. The decisions made by corporate-controlled news media are depended ob “Popularity, Prejudice and Profit”.

The corporate-controlled news media always try to avoid sensible topics. For example, those topics which opposite the Bush dictatorship may be boycotted. However, the corporate- controlled news media have ardently embraced the plethora of cowards who exploited the Iraqi war to advance their own careers. This has caused many important news stories be ignored.

Also, the prejudice of journalists and editors may partially affect the factually of the news. If they have biases on the responders, they can actually decide whether the responders should be interviewed or whether or not a mews segment, comment, article should be aired or published. For example, if a person sends a criticism of a service centre to a newspaper office, by chance, the chief editor and the manager are friends, and then the criticism may not be published. This factor has also made me feel that the media can not be relied upon to convey the truth.

Profit is the most influential factor to drive corporate-controlled news media. Journalists are paid huge amount of money to promote some events. Corporate-controlled news media have decided to “manufacture” and “market” news for profits.

These have made many American lose faith in the America’s corporate-controlled news media. In conclusion, I do not think the media can ever be relied upon to convey the truth.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Born in 1929. He is the civil rights hero who said, “ I have a dream “. He is the winner of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize. His birthday is observed as a national holiday. This solitary man, within a span of thirteen years, did something that changed the way America viewed and treated a portion of its citizens, who were historically faced with racist, restrictive laws as part of their daily living.

Americans of African were considered as second-class human beings. Dr. King was the catalyst for the removal of this loathsome status. The power of his message and the appeal of his movement brought thousands of people of goodwill, both Black and White, to his camp.

History is indeed made up of significant events, which shape our future and outstanding leaders who influence our destiny.

Martin Luther King's contributions to the history place him in this inimitable position. In his short life, Martin Luther King was instrumental in helping people realize and rectify those unspeakable flaws that were tarnishing the name of America. The events, which took place in and around his life, were earth shattering, for they represented an America, which was hostile and quite different from America as we see it today.

We honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because he showed us the way to mend those broken fences and to move on in building this land rather than destroying it. He led campaign after campaign in the streets of America and on to the governor's mansion - even to the White House - in an effort to secure change. Today Black Americans have federal legislation that provides access and legal protection in the areas of public accommodations, housing, voting rights, schools, and transportation. These rights were not easily won, nor readily accepted, but the good will and conscience of an enormous spectrum of America’s society both Black and White said "Move On."