Work Longer to save for old age

Recently I came across an article about Minister Lim Boon Heng who had called for workers to work longer to save for old age. (ST, April 30). This was in his opinion essential to counter the problems that might arise in the future due to the issue of Singapore’s ageing population. According to him, this was the best way to ensure that workers have enough savings for their retirement. In my opinion I strictly feel that this age is just a figure. There shouldn’t be any specific age that determines when it is time for a person to leave his job. Once employees reach the age of entitlement they can retire and claim whatever pension and CPF benefits are due – but they should not be obliged to do so. Employees should be allowed to contribute to the society so as long as they are able and willing to work, they can thus be allowed to deliver their services. A mandatory age for retirement is not necessary in the first place. In time, this would induce a mindset change in society such that it would be understood as normal that people stopped working when they were no longer able to continue, and not when they reached some arbitrary retirement age. The ability to work, not age should be taken into consideration the main criteria for continued employment. Employers should not be able to dismiss an employee on the grounds of age as this is not fair to those who are still fit and able to work. By imposing such mentality in our society’s mindset, it will thus help citizens to save more for their future by getting better returns for their savings.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Torturing criminals and terrorists to gain information ---- doesn’t that put us at the same par as the offenders themselves? Why the use of torture? Morally, it is not acceptable. However some would argue that it is applicable to a certain extent. Personally I think that by abusing anyone to get what they want in whatever means is simply not justifiable. We have no rights even as police officers to incorporate violence while questioning the captives. In fact as police officers, isn’t it even more important for one to practice non-violence? Pulling someone’s fingernails out or the use of electric shock to obtain the information that they want is just unacceptable. Who gives us the rights to do so? As a matter of fact, by doing so, we are no different from the criminals themselves. Terrorists kill to defend their religion in the name of their God, we torture to prevail what we call justice, how does that differentiate us from them? Just as we condemn their wrong believes, should we start condemning ourselves for behaving no different from them? We abuse, torture, black-mail, and even threaten the lives of those captured to achieve our motives, and what if those won’t work? No worries, we’ll just resort to other ways like threatening them with the lives of their families. Let’s now ask ourselves, are these all justified? Can we say that when the 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (K.S.M.), who, according to senior intelligence officials, was told his children would be hurt if he didn't cooperate, justice?
Now, lets take the example of a psychopathic murderer who has buried a teenage girl alive and he is captured by the police. He refuses to say where she is. He taunts the police with his knowledge. In this case, is torture acceptable to find the girl and save her life? My verdict: No. Would you think that one would possibly get any outcome from torturing someone who is mentally disturbed? Do you think that the psychopath would be afraid of the pain inflicted and tell us where the girl is? Highly unlikely, I would say. In fact he/she being a sadist would probably enjoy being tortured and find the process thrilling. Not only does crime torture violates the international law, it is totally pointless and of no use. Instead, why don’t the police find the whereabouts of the girl with the help of some clues left by the murderer? If this took place 50 years ago, I would say it is virtually impossible to do so, But with the help of such advance technology, nothing is impossible. Instead of wasting time, torturing some lunatic freak, which the poor girl would have probably suffocated to death by the time anything relevant would come out of the mouth of the psychopath, why not utilize the time to find the girl themselves. After all I would think that one would not expect much fruitful information from the mouth of a psychopathic murderer. So stop this violence once and for all as it is getting us nowhere.

New media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

In today’s new age, we have a few options on how we can voice our thoughts, namely through blogs, forums, e-mails, and instant messaging. Instead of writing in to the newspaper and waiting for our comments to be published one fine day, it is much convenient now with new means of communication through the internet, one can easily post his/her views either through blogging or discussing it in the forums. With all these easy access to openly express our thoughts, it gives power to the people to voice out either their support or discontentment on a certain issue, whether in a constructive way or not, it is totally up to them to decide. Such great power easily obtained from these new media has raised concerns from various ruling governments all over the world. It is seen as a threat to their stability as many activists have made use of this new media to poison the minds of Internet users to their own advantages. For example, we have witnessed the al-Qaeda group and extremist movements skillfully manipulating these new media to further tarnish the Muslim public’s view of the West. And may we be aware that the internet is globally accessible, not only can it be viewed by the Muslim public; it can also be viewed worldwide. Imagine the whole world under the influence of such manipulative and mind poisoning news. In the worst scenario, such things have the potential to bring down the entire nation, separating the world into two distinct forces, the West and the Muslims.
As much as we value the freedom of speech, we too most certainly do not want the world to be in a complete chaos. Thus, I think that it is essential for us to control our emotions wisely and not let our feelings overtake our consciousness while blogging for example. As a matter of fact, a vast amount of bloggers and online journalists have been thrown in jail in Iran since Sept. 2004, many of which were caught posting offensive materials. If in any case the people pose any threat to the government, the government has every right to detain them. Nevertheless the government should not repress its people to voice out their opinions. Constructive critics are helpful in a way to improve the government. Hence, we suppress such opinions when we know it might be of great use to build a progressive nation? It is possible for the new media to both provide the people with power to express heir views and at the same time not threatening the stability of the government but in fact help the country to further improve.

Do we really know the truth?

Can we rely on the media to provide us the truth behind every news coverage? As much as i used to think the media is the source of truth, now i begin to doubt so. There are occassions when we begin to question, is the media really providing us with the correct informations? Is the news we read everyday merely based on bias judgements, popularity, or whether it will help the media company to gain profit? How can we possibly trust something that we have doubts about?
Even countries like America cannot provide its people with the every details of truth despite being greatly known as a country that pratices freedom of press, what more for other non-liberal countries or countries that proclaim themselves as democratic, but in fact practises the opposite.Maybe in some way or another, such truths are said to be kept from public so as to prevent the people to reform against the government. But what can we say when Sinclair Broadcasting refused to televise a segment of ABC’s “Nightline,” where the names of those killed in Iraq were read? Why cant the public be told about this fact? How would this pose a threat to the government?
In some other cases where some opinions or comments which were thought to be "harmful" were deliberately censored off, not giving it a chance to be revealed publicly. Is this what we, as a democraticsociety should be practicing? Some what, i strongly feel that the public should be given the full overview and judge for themselves base on the truth and not by the vague picture the media had beautifully painted.

Shih Huang Ti

Who exactly was this person? He, who ascended the throne of Ch'in in 246 BC at the age of 13, yes, Shih Huang Ti which literally means Firzt Sovereign Emperor. The man who had left a tremendously black reputation among the chinese community as a result of his ruthless and schematic ruling, his massive ordering of labours, his harsh laws, and his burning of books in 231 BC was also the very same man who unified all of China, thus acclaiming the title as the First Emperor of China. A very interesting person indeed.
Undeniably, Shih Huang Ti was a man of great influence in the past. He constructed a vast network of roads and canals. One of his great artworks, (well, wasnt exactly 'his' work, to be precise, it was the work of billions of innocent man who were brutally used as labours) was The Great Wall, contributing to one of the eight wonders of the world.


to be continued...