I refer to this article, “Orientation – just fun or plain lewd?” found in the Home section of The Sunday Times on the 31st of August 2008 by Shull Sudderuddin.
Oh man. A new year starts, and the first thing on the calendar is the orientation camp. The girls have just completed their 2-year junior college/polytechnic education, and they are looking forward to further education and opportunities in the universities. The guys have just completed their 2-year national service, and they are itching to get back into academics, taking a break from the strenuous physical training. The orientation camp is meant to “orientate” (hence the name) the new university students to adult life. It is to act as some form of transition, as well as a chance for students to bond closer together. Now, let's take a look at how some of these activities achieve these objectives.
First, how it orientates the students towards adult life. In one of the orientation games, the students sat “in a circle, alternating between the sexes” and were required to “pass M&M chocolates to one another using their mouths”. Now, everyone knows that an M&M chocolate is very small. So, in order to pass it from mouth to mouth, it means that the students would have to literally kiss each other to pass on the chocolate. What more the seating arrangment – the participants will kiss 2 people of the opposite sex for each round of the game (after which, they change the seating). I really wonder what they are trying to get at by holding this kind of activities to orientate them to adult life. Maybe they are implying that kissing many people openly is acceptable.
Coming up next are more sleazy activities. Pole dancing is up first. Students of the opposite sex perform this dance, where one acts as the pole and the other dances around him/her suggestively. Although this is done mainly for comic relief (or so they say,), the suggestiveness reflects badly on the attitude of the universities. In secondary schools and JC/polytechnics, such suggestive actions and even remarks are already condemned by teachers and fellow students. Again, are the varsities trying to show that such a mindset and such actions are acceptable in the school? What does it say about adult life then?
Bringing up the sleaziness a notch, we arrive at another activity, known as the “whipped cream forfeit”. In this activity, a guy takes off his shirt and has whipped cream sprayed on his chest. Other participants are then required to lick it off, usually females. Now, since when did proper adult life get anywhere near licking your partner's chest?! This is very disgusting and even I would not permit my wife to do it if I get married in the future.
Oh, not to forget the bonding. In secondary schools and JC/polytechnics, the idea of bonding is centered around doing activities together as a class, or maybe in small groups. Those activities range from scavenger hunts to games like tug-of-war. The team spirit present then would bond the students together. Now, compare these activities to one of those held in the varsities: A special “push-up” forfeit. A female lies down on the floor and a guy is made to do push-ups over her. This is really getting too close to each other, regardless of how the girl is lying down on the floor (face down, face up). I seriously think this kind of 'bonding' would not achieve its objectives.
Many parents share the same sentiments as me – that some of these orientation games are just too lewd, or to put it in a more common term “sick”. However there are a group of people who think that these games are acceptable and are not as 'sick'. To them, the slight sexual slant we see in the activities are nothing but natural. Being adults already, such activities are there to break any previously set up social barriers between students of opposite sexes. I agree that some of the activities are not so serious, but there are some of them (for example, the push-ups) that cross the line by a large margin.
“Funny is in the eyes of the beholder”. Similiarly, the term 'sick' is also subjective – each person has a different take on where the line should be drawn. I have my line drawn very close to my feet, so don't be surprised if I skip the orientation activities in 5 years' time if they push me too far.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
"Democracy leads to Stability". Discuss.
Most countries practice democracy these days. Apparently this “democracy” brings about stability which is essential for development in many areas such as the economic sector. What exactly is this “democracy” then?
Democracy here refers to a general government system in which the people vote for leaders (also known as members of parliament) through elections whom they believe can run the country well. After a few years elections are held again to decide the fate of the leaders – if the people are happy or satisfied they might re-elect them to serve for another term; however if they are not happy they may decide to vote for the opposition parties. I feel that democracy is a double-edged sword, having the ability to give rise to stability or instability depending on the circumstances.
There are a few general categories of stability present in a country. They are political stability, economic stability and social stability. They are intertwined in such a way that a decrease in one of them would almost inevitably lead to a drop in another. Although it seems that democracy is a political concept and therefore would only affect political stability, other areas are affected as well.
Democracy was intended to create stability in a country, or any other community practicing it for that matter. Instead of having a powerful leader who has control over everything and anything, democracy gives the people of the country more, if not a lot of power. In this way they can elect a leader who is willing to address their concerns and voice out any more that may come along, compared to living with a leader who does not care about them and resorting to protests and violence in order to make their needs heard. There you have it, social stability.
However, as I said above, democracy is a double edged sword. In a democracy the majority has more power compared to the minority, and if there is some prejudice in the mindsets of the majority it might lead to discrimination. Also, during voting everyone has an equal vote – a scholar’s vote has equal weightage as a hawker’s as well as a doctor’s, be it on issues regarding the economy where knowledge of the situation was required or on issues regarding the level of hygiene in hawker centres. In this case, even though the minority has more knowledge on the issue and would have made a better decision, the majority still wins over the minority regardless of how correct their mindset is.
Democracy was introduced to us long before we knew the exact meaning of the word. In primary one, we voted for our class monitor. As a group of friends we voted on which movie to watch, or which fast food restaurant to patronize on an outing. How beneficial towards stability is this general system of voting for the course of action? It satisfies the majority, leading to less unhappiness compared to if the minority’s choice was placed on a higher priority. It allows for opinions to be heard and decisions made based on the opinions. On the other hand it will not satisfy everyone as there is a group that will lose out (a community with people of the exact same mindset is very rare). Also bias may be present and the minority would lose out frequently.
Seen from my last point, bias affects stability in a democracy. Another important point is that leaders will too affect the stability if they are unable to make the correct decisions. I therefore conclude that democracy can lead to stability, but there are other contributing factors that cannot be overlooked as well.
Democracy here refers to a general government system in which the people vote for leaders (also known as members of parliament) through elections whom they believe can run the country well. After a few years elections are held again to decide the fate of the leaders – if the people are happy or satisfied they might re-elect them to serve for another term; however if they are not happy they may decide to vote for the opposition parties. I feel that democracy is a double-edged sword, having the ability to give rise to stability or instability depending on the circumstances.
There are a few general categories of stability present in a country. They are political stability, economic stability and social stability. They are intertwined in such a way that a decrease in one of them would almost inevitably lead to a drop in another. Although it seems that democracy is a political concept and therefore would only affect political stability, other areas are affected as well.
Democracy was intended to create stability in a country, or any other community practicing it for that matter. Instead of having a powerful leader who has control over everything and anything, democracy gives the people of the country more, if not a lot of power. In this way they can elect a leader who is willing to address their concerns and voice out any more that may come along, compared to living with a leader who does not care about them and resorting to protests and violence in order to make their needs heard. There you have it, social stability.
However, as I said above, democracy is a double edged sword. In a democracy the majority has more power compared to the minority, and if there is some prejudice in the mindsets of the majority it might lead to discrimination. Also, during voting everyone has an equal vote – a scholar’s vote has equal weightage as a hawker’s as well as a doctor’s, be it on issues regarding the economy where knowledge of the situation was required or on issues regarding the level of hygiene in hawker centres. In this case, even though the minority has more knowledge on the issue and would have made a better decision, the majority still wins over the minority regardless of how correct their mindset is.
Democracy was introduced to us long before we knew the exact meaning of the word. In primary one, we voted for our class monitor. As a group of friends we voted on which movie to watch, or which fast food restaurant to patronize on an outing. How beneficial towards stability is this general system of voting for the course of action? It satisfies the majority, leading to less unhappiness compared to if the minority’s choice was placed on a higher priority. It allows for opinions to be heard and decisions made based on the opinions. On the other hand it will not satisfy everyone as there is a group that will lose out (a community with people of the exact same mindset is very rare). Also bias may be present and the minority would lose out frequently.
Seen from my last point, bias affects stability in a democracy. Another important point is that leaders will too affect the stability if they are unable to make the correct decisions. I therefore conclude that democracy can lead to stability, but there are other contributing factors that cannot be overlooked as well.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Commentary 1 -- Jaywalking
I am writing in response to the article “Watch out! Everyone’s jaywalking” (News, The Sunday Times, March 2 2008) written by Mavis Toh.
Many people these days seem to jaywalk very often. Customers used to cut queues in the past, but now I think the shoppers have become smart enough not to do so. With shopping areas such as Orchard road, time is precious to them as they have so many stores to visit. Some customers have come up with a better way to save time – instead of cutting queues and being rude to others, they have decided to shorten their “shopping breaks” (periods of time when they are moving from shop to shop) by jaywalking across the road instead of waiting for the traffic lights to make way for them. To them, as long as it saves time, it is worth doing. I mean, why else would you see more than 500 people jaywalking in half an hour?!
A few of these jaywalking professionals were approached as to why they wanted to cross the road. “To get to the traffic light, I have to walk at least another 20m. It’s just too annoying,” replied one student jaywalker. I am very sure that 20m is not too much of a stroll away – I don’t see how it would be so annoying. Maybe they think that getting knocked down by a vehicle while jaywalking to save time is much less annoying than walking an extra 20m.
Apart from that, some also stated, “It’s not dangerous. You just have to run at the right time and be fast.” Now this one really sounds like an expert – for today’s practice, you have to do 50 10m sprints, some footwork, and then some dodge ball to test your reflexes. If you don’t concentrate, you will have to learn it the hard way… *screech*screams*BANG*
Oh come on. The road is much more dangerous than that. Even in their practice the dodge balls travel in straight lines – for all you know, there might be a drunk driver who zigzags down the road and then the familiar *screech*scream*BANG* would heard again. Granted, practice makes perfect but the risk is still there, even if the chance is as small as seeing 2 people getting knocked down at a pedestrian crossing at the same time.
I think Singaporeans need to be a bit more concerned about their own safety than time. Time is money, therefore time saved is money saved. But if they get knocked down I think it would be time wasted, money spent and also life gone. So what’s the point? Surely not everyone has arthritis and they cannot walk another 20m; nor do I think that practice would bring about such agility that you would certainly be able to dodge a drunk driver if encountered during a routine jaywalking attempt.
Some are rushing for time so they may not be thinking about all this when they are jaywalking, but thinking "just this once. I’m really late and the boss might..." In that case I too may choose to jaywalk, after considering the probability of an accident happening when I turn my head to look for cars in the other direction. I know a few friends who do jaywalk for the same reason – and I confess that I have jaywalked on a few occasions too.
Even so, until a mutation gives us the ability to immaterialize, I don’t think I’ll consider jaywalking as a habit -- I’d rather walk 20m and get sore legs than a few broken bones (I mean, you'll never know which ones will break first).
Many people these days seem to jaywalk very often. Customers used to cut queues in the past, but now I think the shoppers have become smart enough not to do so. With shopping areas such as Orchard road, time is precious to them as they have so many stores to visit. Some customers have come up with a better way to save time – instead of cutting queues and being rude to others, they have decided to shorten their “shopping breaks” (periods of time when they are moving from shop to shop) by jaywalking across the road instead of waiting for the traffic lights to make way for them. To them, as long as it saves time, it is worth doing. I mean, why else would you see more than 500 people jaywalking in half an hour?!
A few of these jaywalking professionals were approached as to why they wanted to cross the road. “To get to the traffic light, I have to walk at least another 20m. It’s just too annoying,” replied one student jaywalker. I am very sure that 20m is not too much of a stroll away – I don’t see how it would be so annoying. Maybe they think that getting knocked down by a vehicle while jaywalking to save time is much less annoying than walking an extra 20m.
Apart from that, some also stated, “It’s not dangerous. You just have to run at the right time and be fast.” Now this one really sounds like an expert – for today’s practice, you have to do 50 10m sprints, some footwork, and then some dodge ball to test your reflexes. If you don’t concentrate, you will have to learn it the hard way… *screech*screams*BANG*
Oh come on. The road is much more dangerous than that. Even in their practice the dodge balls travel in straight lines – for all you know, there might be a drunk driver who zigzags down the road and then the familiar *screech*scream*BANG* would heard again. Granted, practice makes perfect but the risk is still there, even if the chance is as small as seeing 2 people getting knocked down at a pedestrian crossing at the same time.
I think Singaporeans need to be a bit more concerned about their own safety than time. Time is money, therefore time saved is money saved. But if they get knocked down I think it would be time wasted, money spent and also life gone. So what’s the point? Surely not everyone has arthritis and they cannot walk another 20m; nor do I think that practice would bring about such agility that you would certainly be able to dodge a drunk driver if encountered during a routine jaywalking attempt.
Some are rushing for time so they may not be thinking about all this when they are jaywalking, but thinking "just this once. I’m really late and the boss might..." In that case I too may choose to jaywalk, after considering the probability of an accident happening when I turn my head to look for cars in the other direction. I know a few friends who do jaywalk for the same reason – and I confess that I have jaywalked on a few occasions too.
Even so, until a mutation gives us the ability to immaterialize, I don’t think I’ll consider jaywalking as a habit -- I’d rather walk 20m and get sore legs than a few broken bones (I mean, you'll never know which ones will break first).
Thursday, February 28, 2008
1st Post
Well, i thought that that a blog for me to post my personal feelings about recent events was just the thing. Coincidentally, there is an English assignment that requires me to do so as well -- so to Dr. Alfiani who will be reading this (i think), hi =)
The posts will be coming soon. i have a few nice aritcles in mind, and i will be posting up my comments soon.
Signing off
The posts will be coming soon. i have a few nice aritcles in mind, and i will be posting up my comments soon.
Signing off
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
