Dear 03/10

Please use these constructive comments to achieve our motto: BE BRILLIANT!

DEBATE 1 MARCH 03/10

This house believes that young people are selfish and apathetic.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition given.
2) Spending time in front of computers  no interaction with ppl  selfish & apathetic?
3) Lack of interest in politics  selfish & apathetic?
4) Just care about their own studies and career and not care about matters to do with the nation.
5) Everything is set up for them so they don’t participate in politics therefore selfish and apathetic??? WHERE’s the link???
6) No evidence given 
7) More materialistic therefore? STOPPED.
8) LINK NOT GIVEN
9) Need to show more confidence and fluency. Needs more energy.

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal  computers can’t be blame for selfishness. Obama uses computer right? Good rebuttal
2) Case division given.
3) Kids are stressful? How is this related?
4) Volunteer work done cos’ they care for others than for portfolio
5) Pronunciation is not clear.
6) Evidence given. Good example given.
7) More good things in life. So they’re willing to enjoy the good life? So how is this linked/ relevant?

Prop Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Obama is NOT a young person. Correct. Students do CIP only as part of the curriculum  Scope is NOT just Singapore!
2) Only care about how they feel  selfish & apathetic.
3) Example from Japan. Known to be selfish and apathetic. Not say good morning  so???
4) 62% of ??? say they’re apathetic. 85% say they’re rebellious. JAPAN/?????
5) China –reference to authority. One-child policy  self-centred next generation.
6) Care only about themselves.
7) Pronunciation not too bad.
8) Fluent and understandable.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Computers can be used for raising awareness. Upbringing??? But this does not disprove the motion.
2) Passion & engagement in environment, social, economic issues. So NOT ALL are passive about ALL these matters.
3) Survey:
4) Clear speaker with confidence and some interaction with audience. However, there can be more energy.
5) They CAN BE LESS selfish. So are they or not?
6) Students have passion but there are no platforms for them to demonstrate their passions.
7) America: 3 ppl? Who are they? Their parents are politicians so they have an avenue for participation.

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Weak enunciation.
2) CIP done for CIP hours? How many do after their academic studies are over?
3) NO rebuttal?
4) No eye contact? No confidence.
5) Summary/ Conclusion: No clear line of argument.
6) GROUP: Limited area of coverage.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Summary: Care more about themselves. Political & Social factors.
2) Rebuttal: Using computers  much time  less interaction with their peers BUT did not clearly kill the opp.
3) Rebuttal: CIP causes one to be more caring and less apathetic. So out of point since youth are already apathetic.
4) Confident and loud and interacting.


This house believes that the Singapore education system has been effective in preparing the young people for the future.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition clear in particular of the education system. But how much of this is relevant?
2) Reading. Some eye contact but not enough. No energy.
3) Evidence/ reference to leaders of Singapore as proof of effectiveness but more elaboration is lacking.
4) practical vs academic

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal
2) World class system but does not adequately prepare???
3) Widen the gap between the different classes. So not all prepared. NT students???
4) Confident and energetic and loud.
5) For the best  they’re the best and become complacent.
6) RJC student who put up insensitive comments. The elites are the capable and the only class capable. Elite teacher who could not adapt to neighbourhood school. They look down on common class  working society. Can’t adapt to a more diverse types of people. Luckily the link is consistently made.


Prop Speaker 2:

1) Reading but clear attempt to eye contact.
2) No rebuttal.
3) Effectively prepare – different stages? How to prove that it has been successful? Ss should be able to … but is it effective?
4) Instead of exams, there are other programmes to prepare students in presentation/ speaking skills. Communicating and thinking skills taught. Increase in oral exams weightage. Developed from young.
5) Academically inferior??? Exp. ITE prepares the students of a lower academic ability.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness in whether they show effectiveness. Changes  effectiveness? Only primary school syllabus?
2) Expressive. Interacts with audience and eye contact.
3) Elitism is relevant?
4) teacher-oriented. Spoon-feeding.  ss’s mindset is that there’ll be feeding and no need to go beyond the syllabus. This creates a dependent generation which hampers them in the future and in the workplace. The school environment is very different from the real world.
5) exam-oriented. Future is dependent on exams. Exam-smart vs knowledge. Social skills??? Interaction with society?

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Enunciation is not very clear.
2) Rebuttal: elitist mindset? In the students of branded schools so they’ll not be prepared in the future. ‘lousy’ mindset?? Exp???
3) Confident. But need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness how they keep harping on elitism. Pri syllabus  idea not clearly brought out.
2) They become mature.
3) Prepare their mental abilities.
4) Pronunciation & enunciation is somewhat of a struggle.
5) Learn in educational institutions like Polytechnic.
6) Wide range of opp to develop strength.
7) Life and soft skills brought out.
8) But did not tackle the idea of exam-oriented education system.
9) Concrete and specific examples.

Dear 06/10

I did not put down the names, but you can identify the comment relevant to your presentation by looking at the motion and the speaker.

Please use this constructive comments for future improvements!

OUR AIM: BE BRILLIANT.

Debate 3: This house believes that education turns students into robots.

Prop: Speaker 1

Definition; Makes them less creative and less outstanding. Robot = mechanical, unemotional. Definition overly elaborate in a way that is not linked to the question.
Point: Tell the students how to do but not why.
No eye contact. Natural reading pace and clear pronunciation. Loud and clear.

Opp: Speaker 1

Case division. 
Not targeted their definition.
Point: Prepare students for adulthood  linked to robots??? Students have a choice not to become robots? Not linked.
Not look prepared/ confident. Not loud.
Not able to think on feet and answer the question.

Prop: Speaker 2

Point: getting into university??? Competition  not linked to robots.
Same answers rather than their own. Memorized. Activities are controlled.
No eye contact. Reading. Pronunciation is ok but inflections not very natural/ expression?

Opp: Speaker 2

Point: Rebuttal  picks out the lack of link between working hard and becoming robots.
Education as a stimulation of their minds.
What is tested requires application. Need to think to answer the question, not just regurgitation.
Confident. Hand in pocket. Interact with audience.

Prop: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  Develop their characters? Is this relevant? Activities for portfolio. Not linked.
Clear. Confident.

Opp: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  the why of theories is not important. The application of the theories is what is relevant.
Confident. Interacts with audience.

Opp: Speaker 4

Point: Education  teaching style. Students decide their subject combination in school. Have freedom to engage in leisure activities in school, e.g. sports. Arts & Sports nurture talents  linked to robots??? GP & PW less robotic, so it’s not just memorization (link has to be consistently made). Independent learning, not robotic.
Confident. Clear. Loud. Interacts with audience. Answers the question adequately.

Prop: Speaker 4

Point: Tone. Must understand the WHY to APPLY??? 1 clarification. Less creativity?
Lacks confidence. Fidgeting. Restless.

DEBATE 1: Youth is never cherished.

Prop Speaker 1

CONTENT: Definition. Setting out the line of argument. Find purpose in life. Just preparing for the future. 6/10
STYLE: Ending with ‘Ah’, ‘lah’, ‘everything’. Eye contact. Need to be louder and clearer. Interacts with the audience. 6/10
Ans Qn: To Grow, to Learn. Trying to reinforce her definition of cherishing youth.

Opp Speaker 1

CONTENT: Case division. Definition from Wikipedia??? Fun in youthful years. Building friendships.
STYLE: Reading. A little eye contact. Clear though lacks energy and expression. 5/10

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Spending time on the Internet. Short. Not very clear ideas. Advice? Compared to other times of their lives? How is this relevant? 2/10
STYLE: Inflections not natural. Accented. Soft. Not clear. Not prepared? Facial exp. 2/10
Ans Q: Not able to respond.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Need to clearly bring out point. 3/10
STYLE: Lacks confidence. Not very loud/ clear. Need eye contact. 4/10

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal—how does making friends  cherishing youth? Lacks rebuttals.
STYLE: Not very confident, Loud or Clear.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal  bring out the lack of explanation of the other team. Add colour to our lives  cherish. Learn to make important decisions. 3/10
STYLE: Not loud or clear or confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: Lacks rebuttals. Summary.
STYLE: Unconvincing.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Rebuttal. E.g. to rebut
STYLE: Weak pronunciation. Diff to understand.

Debate 2: Youth is wasted in preparation for adulthood.

Prop Speaker 1
STYLE: Pronunciation is entirely clear due to accent. Needs to be more energetic.
CONTENT: Case division. Definition is not clear  time vs person? Toughest education system in the world?? Cannot enjoy their lives. Cannot learn new skills that are more useful than what they are studying??? Don’t care about learning process. Just memorization. So wasted youth. Not prepared either.
Ans Qn: able to respond.

Opp Speaker 1

STYLE: Clear. But lacks interaction with audience.
CONTENT: Case Division. Lacks Responsibilities to take care of. So use this time to prepare for the future, for the future responsibilities/ skills needed of adulthood.
Youth have the energy and vigour to pursue interests.

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Too much time = ¼ of life preparing for adulthood. Inflection is not very clear. Skills wasted as many of these skills as it’s fast changing world. Predicting opp’s arg. Not answering the question.
STYLE: Exp  Clear. Interaction. Confident. Loud.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Rebuttal = youth have time to pursue interests e.g. during CCA. Preparing for their future is important  how is this linked to question?
STYLE: Reading. Need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Not using time to do what they want and enjoying themselves. No rebuttal.
STYLE: No interaction. Soft. Without energy.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Using time productively for the future. Lacks rebuttal.
STYLE: Not clear/ loud/ confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: skills that are impt. Robotic studying??? Time is used NOT wasted. Clear line of argument.
STYLE: Able to rebut. Able to think on feet.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Line of argument of team: Skills learned are unnecessary. Rebuttal is unclear.
STYLE: uh uh. Needs more energy and be louder. Needs confidence.

Dear guys and gals

Please join this wonderful and prestigious competition.
http://www.goipeace.or.jp/english/activities/programs/1001.html

I wish I can join and go visit Tokyo... which you get to if you win!

Cheers
Ms Goh

Mar 28, 2010
What price victory?
Analysts say the acrimony between Obama and his critics will only get worse
By Chua Chin Hon, US Bureau Chief
-- PHOTO: AP

Washington: Yes he did. After a year-long battle that put his young presidency on the line, Mr Barack Obama finally signed into law a historic health-care Bill that had eluded his predecessors for much of the past century.

'Real, meaningful change is coming to the United States of America,' a triumphant Mr Obama declared last week.

The new law would provide coverage to nearly 95 per cent of Americans, allow young adults to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26, rein in some of the worst practices of the insurance companies and, hopefully, also rein in soaring health-care costs that threaten to bankrupt businesses and local governments.

'This victory does not erase the many serious challenges we face as a nation,' Mr Obama added. 'But as we tackle all these other challenges that we face, we can take our next steps with new confidence because we know it's still possible to do big things in America.'

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I wonder if his health-care success might have actually made it more difficult for the US to get 'big things' done in future.

Anyone who has been following the wrenching debate and bitter party warfare over health care knows that the victory came at a price.

The Bill had no Republican support at all when it was passed by a 219-212 vote on Sunday night. And when Mr Obama signed it into law in the East Room of the White House, not one Republican leader was present.

The question here is not whether Mr Obama is living up to the fuzzy promise of 'bipartisanship' or not.

It is whether he and his allies have to wage an epic battle with the opposition each time they want to try to tackle a major issue. After health care, is there going to be all-out war again over finance, immigration or education reforms?

If his party retains sizeable majorities in Congress after November's mid-term elections, Mr Obama can arguably use strong-arm tactics to push through these reforms the same way he did health care. If American voters stick to their historical preference for 'balanced' government and representation rather than dominance by a single party, however, then all bets are off.

But how long can the world's lone superpower engage in this sort of 'civil war', and to what end?

Wasted chances

It has been famously said that no one should ever see how laws or sausages are made if they wish to retain any respect for the final product.

So it was with the health-care Bill.

The popular young President came to power promising to change 'politics as usual'.

There appeared to be few big hurdles when Mr Obama officially kicked off his health-care campaign last March. He enjoyed a tremendous amount of public goodwill, and talked constantly about uniting the country around its common challenges.

His Democratic Party commanded huge majorities. In the 435-member House of Representatives, the party had a 75-seat majority. In the Senate, it held a so-called 'super-majority' of 60 seats that allowed it to defeat any delay tactics in the legislative process.

And yet one year later, the Bill was passed in a time-tested manner: lots of bargaining and arm-twisting by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat veterans of Congressional trench warfare, lots of lobbying by and compromises with big industry players, and much heated rhetoric and vicious obstruction from the opposition.

Up to the very end and beyond, even after the Bill was signed, Republican senators sought to gut and hobble the measure at the 'finishing touches' stage, filing procedural and technical challenges on matters like federal subsidies for Viagra.

They failed. But what lingered was a deeply divided legislature and a toxic atmosphere beyond the halls of Congress. There is not much to celebrate when acts of vandalism, obscene messages and death threats are aimed at Democrat lawmakers who backed the Bill.

What went wrong?

It may be instructive to trace the Bill's tortuous path to spot the mistakes made along the way.

A big one at the start was Mr Obama's decision to let an unpopular Congress take the lead in crafting the Bill. He opted instead for the role of 'encourager'-in-chief, pitching the importance of health-care reform at town hall meetings, television interviews and even late-night talk shows.

But this approach meant that he had no clear policy message to sell while the competing drafts of the Bill wound their way through various Congressional committees. Poll after poll showed that Mr Obama was failing to get through to the public, with most people professing to be confused about what the debate was about.

Meanwhile, a misinformation campaign by his critics on the right began to take hold. From last August onwards, the President found himself helplessly fighting one bogus claim after another: that his plan would create 'death panels' that would kill off grandmothers, that it was a secret plan to turn the US into a socialist state and that it was a diabolical government plot to seize one-sixth of the economy.

As protesters began holding up placards depicting Mr Obama as Hitler, and angry mobs began heckling their congressmen at town hall meetings, many commentators began to ask: How did a communicator as gifted as Mr Obama end up losing the public message on his No.1 domestic agenda?

Analysts said this had as much to do with Mr Obama's inexperience as the new media landscape that was reshaping the political discourse.

'In today's world with the 24/7 news cycle, millions of amateur bloggers and people getting their Twitter feed all the time, it is very difficult for politicians and government leaders to control the debate,' said Mr William Eggers, the global research director in the public sector practice of accounting firm Deloitte.

'You can try to steer the debate and be ready to champion change, but it is very, very difficult to control it.'

Course correction

In the second half of last year, Mr Obama allowed health-care legislation to drift from one unmet deadline to another. Some said he was too hung up over attempts to win Republican support. Others believed he became complacent.

Either way, it took a stunning political bombshell to force a major course correction.

On Jan 19, little-known Republican candidate Scott Brown won the senatorial race for Massachusetts - a seat held for decades by Mr Obama's mentor, the late Mr Edward Kennedy. With it went the Democrats' 'super-majority'.

For the next two weeks, his stunned advisers and the Democratic leadership debated whether to scale back the reforms or push ahead with a comprehensive plan despite the risks.

They decided for one final push on the latter. Only this time, Mr Obama did not have any illusions about what it would take to get it done.

Yes, he would still host that televised health-care summit with the Republicans. But the real work would take place behind the scenes as he and key Democratic leaders like Ms Pelosi corralled the votes needed to clear a new two-step legislative process.

Under this new strategy, the President would need at least 216 House Democrats to adopt a version of the health-care Bill passed by the Senate in December so that he can sign it into law. The House would also approve a list of changes that the Senate would then approve as a reconciliation Bill.

In the end, it came down to hardball politics. In the final week leading up to the vote last Sunday, the President made no fewer than 90 calls to lawmakers whom he cajoled, assured or arm-twisted.

The deal-making went on till the eleventh hour to court a faction of Democrats concerned that federal money would be used to fund abortions. To win them over, Mr Obama released in advance the text of an executive order that he would sign to uphold a rule against using health-care funds for the procedure.

Hours later, he and Ms Pelosi sealed the deal on health care.

Lessons in disaster

How will this battle shape the administration? Analysts say they expect to see a more aggressive White House going ahead, one that would not be shy about using its power or its leverage in Congress to get things done.

In a sign of how things have soured feelings all round, Mr Obama did not even bother with a token offer of conciliation towards the Republicans or his critics on the right. Instead, he castigated them for 'all the punditry, all of the lobbying, all of the game-playing that passes for governing in Washington'.

'I heard one of the Republican leaders say this (health-care Bill) was going to be Armageddon,' he warned. 'Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We'll be around and we'll see.'

The acrimony that has been seen in the US in the past year is about to get worse, analysts said.

'Now that the Republicans have lost (health care), I don't think they see any reason to cooperate one bit,' said Dr Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.

'For the rest of this presidential term, we are just going to be faced with a dysfunctional government because the feelings (among Republicans) are very deep now and I don't think they are going away any time soon.'

But the administration still has many pressing issues on its plate for this year. Financial reform is likely to be the next big item on the agenda, but reports here are already pointing to a Republican plan for a 'broad assault' against the Democrats' proposals.

It is popular these days to speak of a 'broken Washington' and the need to reform America's political institutions. Some even believe that a third political party is needed to truly represent the independents and centrist voters and break the Democrat-Republican stalemate.

However, not everyone agrees. Mr Eggers, who is also the co-author of the book, Getting Big Things Done In Government, argues that the problem is not with the system, but with the way it has been used.

He told The Sunday Times: 'The Founders put together a form of government where it would be hard to move very quickly because they didn't want people to make rash decisions...I don't see the need necessarily for any big political reforms right now. I think we need to get back to understanding how do we use the system and how we go about getting the process right during these big initiatives.'

He suggested, for example, that legislation should be designed to work in real life, rather than for its ability to get enough votes in Congress.

But can you reform the process without changing the system? I don't know. And honestly, I don't see any real prospects for changing such a complex political system or its entrenched processes, particularly when the key players are constantly at each other's throat.

Perhaps Mr Obama will forge a way through the fractious politics. Or maybe we just have to get used to the harsh new realities of American politics.

He did.

chinhon@sph.com.sg

Fractious politics

'For the rest of this presidential term, we are just going to be faced with a dysfunctional government because the feelings (among Republicans) are very deep now and I don't think they are going away any time soon.'

DR JOSEPH ANTOS of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank

Hi everyone

I WANT YOU TO BE THE WINNER of the Royal Commonwealth Essay Competition!

It is a prestigious essay competition that's international in nature.
http://www.thercs.org/youth/Filestore/PDFDownloads/Miscellaneous_files/RCS_Young_Commonwealth_Competitions_Flyer.pdf

Do join and submit the essays via email to me. The school will then shortlist and send your wonderful entry in.

Please check out the essays of previous winners before you start so that you can totally overwhelm the competition.

Cheers
Ms Goh

Ng Jia Min 03/10

Sports have long been associated with leisure, entertainment, leading a healthy lifestyle and healthy competition. However, with the advent of globalization and mass media, the sporting industry has now transformed into a lucrative, commercialized business. Companies are now jumping onto the bandwagon and heavily using sporting events to promote their products. Countries are busy courting for opportunities to host sporting events to boost their tourist numbers and economy. The rise in commercialization of sports has sparked off comments that sports have been over commercialized. It is unfortunate that these worries may become a reality as the commercialization of sports has allowed the fundamental nature of sports to go to waste. Sports, as it seems, is no longer, about leading healthy lifestyles and being engaged in healthy competitions.
International sporting events have been known to be a gem to a host country’s economy. Along with the sporting events comes a tidal wave of sponsorship, tourist numbers and attention on the country. This effect is further propagated with the rise of mass media. People all over the world now have access to different forms of media that allow them to tune in to the sporting event. With greater attention on the country, there will be an influx of tourists, on top of the athletes and media, providing a boom for the economy, tourist numbers and international reputation. Before Singapore hosted the Formula One night race, not many would have known of the existence of this “Little Red Dot”. However when the spectacular night time rice on city streets kicked off its show, “suddenly everyone knows where Singapore is”, as quoted by Zak brown, who runs Just Marketing International, a motor-sports sponsor agency. When Singapore first hosted the world’s first F1 night race in 2008, it was hoped that the event will help boost her economy especially during the recession. Evidently, the commercialization of sporting events has such a big draw because of the massive benefits it has on the host country and their economy.
However, beneath the glamour of commercialization of sports lies the reality that the fundamental nature of sports is slowly fading away. To a common layman, sports is simply about keeping fit and leading a healthy lifestyle. While the commercialization of sports may fuel their interest in the sport, it is unfortunate that ideas that sponsorships and advertisements that sporting events tend to bring in undermine the value of sports. Before the Federation International de I’Automobile (FIA) implemented a ban on tobacco advertising in 2005, Marlboro logos were plastered all over Ferrari’s cars in the F1 circuit. In addition, MacDonald’s has been the official worldwide partner for the Olympics since 1996 and caterer in Olympic Villages. It is ironic that the messages that these corporate sponsors are sending out are contradictory to the healthy lifestyles that sports promote. It is simply hypocritical to imagine fit athletes gobbling down French fries and indulging in a cigarette or two. Viewers and spectators are led into thinking that cigarettes and MacDonald’s fit into the supposed healthy lifestyle that sports advocates. Sporting events have transformed into a business that need to attract sponsors only to get the event running. The notion of keeping fit is no longer innate in the purpose of sporting events.
Besides corporate sponsorships, the monetary incentives that sportsmen receive have become the sole motivation for them to succeed. The idea of sportsmen giving their best for the glory of the individual, country and sport has long been entrenched in society’s mindset since the dawn of the Olympics. However, with the introduction of monetary incentives, sportsmen are now rather working towards monetary rewards. The motivation of being first in any international competition has never been so immense and with the enticement of the incentives, athletes are willing to go to extreme lengths to place first. Being so centered in winning, they will no longer think twice about doping and consuming performance enhancing drugs to boost their chances. Such drugs will give them an added edge over other competitors especially in sports that require high levels of stamina and endurance. Despite checks and balances being in place, like the World Anti-Doping Agency, doping is still a major concern in the sporting industry. However, the competitive advantages that athletes will receive far outweigh the possibility of being caught. As long as economic returns that athlete will receive for winning a competition, the chances of doping will similarly increase.
In conclusion, the commercialization of sports is a double-edged sword. While the commercialization of sports have seen grown interests in sporting activity and the boosting of the host country’s economy through sporting events, the fact that sports has slowly become an overly lucrative business that have washed away the value of sports has become a reality.

PICTURES FROM
http://autoracingsport.com/f1-barcelona-wednesday-test-times-ferrari-in-top/
http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6996:healthy-eating-cafe-set-to-be-closed-down-for-london-2012-in-favour-of-mcdonalds&catid=84:london-2012-news&Itemid=89


TAN XINRU 06/10
Aristotle commented that ‘Education is the best provision for old age.’ Undoubtedly, in the 21st century, education is crucial to everyone, from individuals to the nations. It is the process of acquiring or imparting knowledge and it helps to build general reasoning and judgement and prepares one intellectually for a mature life. Education can make a person successful, a country powerful. It can also bring unfavourable impact on a country as well.
Firstly, education helps to boost a nation’s economy. As people gain more knowledge and skills, they are able to do demanding jobs. A skilled workforce is desired by multinational companies (MNC) than an unskilled workforce. They are able to take up jobs which require a higher level of knowledge on a specific field of expertise, like aerospace or biochemistry. When a majority of the workforce takes up those skilled jobs, the overall gross national product (GNP) will increase as well, as people gets higher wages jobs and are able to afford more goods and services. This reflects the good performance of the country’s economy. In Singapore, the government understand the importance of staying relevant and competitive in a globalised world, whereby professional development and continual learning is the key to improve the workers’ aptitude and the country’s economy. As such, it invests into CET or Continuing Education and Training programme under Singapore’s Workforce Development Agency (WDA) to allow employers to encourage the employees to pick up new skills and knowledge. This helps to add value to the workers’ career and ensure that they stay ahead of industry developments. A skilled workforce that has the least probability of getting eliminated will eventually improve the country’s economy.
Additionally, education also allows people to be more sophisticated in the way they think and behave. Education allows people to communicate verbally, write, listen and read, so as to further acquire a greater range of knowledge. It helps to build critical and logical thinking in individuals. One example is the debates done in schools. A debate is like a platform to allow students and others to express their thoughts justifiably and efficiently to other individuals over a controversial issue. One of its objectives is to trigger the audiences to discuss over the issue and to share their different opinions with each other. This allows them to gain insights of many different perspectives over one issue. It will irrefutably assist individuals in making sensitive decisions as they will be able to weigh the unforeseen pros and cons of their potential choice naturally, and also, able to find the best remedy to solve a cumbersome problem. Therefore, education helps to promote the maturity of the mind and it teaches individuals to make rational decisions.
However, education can result to decreasing fertility and birth rates of a country, in the long run. Education empowers a woman to be learned and able to make judgements for herself. Hence, with a higher level of education, most women will pursue their career goals first, before starting a family. Some might even forsake marriage as a result of greater financial independence and career progression. Even if they do marry, educated women tend to marry at a later age and conceive fewer children. Statistics shows that the total birth rate of Singapore has generally declined over the last 20 years, but the sharpest drop was for those between 25 and 29 years, falling from 12.75 births per 1,000 women in 2003 to 8.99 births per 1,000 women in 2008. Singaporean women are now mostly giving birth between the ages of 30 to 34. In addition, higher-educated women have fewer children than lower-educated women on average.
Despite the negative impact of how education has decreased the fertility and birth rates in Singapore, it still plays a huge role to reduce excessive population growth in less developed countries such as India. India’s total birth rate has decreased from 2.91 in 2003 per 1,000 women to 2.22 per 1,000 women in 2008. The Indian government has made education up to age 14 free and compulsory and has also set up educational talks for the citizens about contraceptive measures and effects of having a huge family. The educational policies made did help in elevating the burden the large and young population placed on the economy. Hence, education does play a vital role in controlling the population growth of a country.
From the above discussion, we can safely conclude that education creates significant impact on various levels. It can either improve the economy of a country, or direct the nation to face the prospect of an ageing population. It can also curb the excessive population bloom of a country. Most importantly, education cultivates a person and teaches him to make mature and reasonable choices.
---788words---


Picture shows that Indian women are getting more educated, as more have begun to pick up computer skills.
http://www.womenchalet.com/UserFiles/2009/6/19/Working-Women-at-a-glance.jpg


Picture shows aunties and the elderly learning to use computers. It shows the spirit of learning to ensure that they are not being left behind in this techno-savvy world.
http://my.88db.com/q-Computer+Classes+for+Seniors/1/

http://www.123rf.com/photo_4605742.html
Picture shows that more and more females are getting higher level of education over the years, thus resulting to lower birth rates in many modernised countries like Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore.


Picture showing one of the few activities done in schools to promote critical and logical thinking in students.

CHEANG KAI WEN 03/10
Sports and Economics
Cheang Kai Wen
03/10

The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics was one that would go down into the record books for China. It was such a historical event not only because China was proven to be good enough to host the world’s most prestigious sporting event, but also because of the large sum of money spent on holding the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. But despite the large sum of money spent on hosting this sporting event, the Olympics not only brought about large amounts of revenue for China but also drove brands to expand and even go global.
With the Chinese government showering more than five times the expenditure spent on the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Beijing Olympics was dubbed the most expensive Olympic Games in history. Standing proudly in Beijing is China’s National Stadium, affectionately known as the “Bird’s Nest”. It was a $500 million project with a final capacity of 100,000 seats during the Games itself. Other than building the National Stadium, an estimated $2 billion was spent to build 12 permanent and eight temporary venues for the Olympics, including the National Aquatics Centre also known as the “Water Cube” and of course, the Olympic Village. To highlight China’s emergence on the world stage, the Chinese government also invested heavily in new facilities and transportation systems. Driven by the belief of the 2008 Olympics being a ‘face project’ whereby the best of the country was to be presented to the world, Chinese officials are extremely extravagant when it comes to beautifying things at all costs. This therefore accounts for the enormous amount of money spent on the 2008 Games.
Of course, with the Olympics being the world’s most prestigious sporting event, it will undoubtedly bring about revenue for the country. In a report published by the Chinese government, it stated that the Games made a profiting profit of about $16million. It also stated that the Games had about $171 million more in revenue than expenses. However, the $40 billion spent on the building fundamental infrastructures for the Olympics have not yet been taken into account.
Other than direct revenues and advantages that the 2008 Olympic Games generated for China, the Games did indeed bring about indirect benefits for sports brands that were involved. The Olympics have brought consumers closer to such sporting events and have in turn created a platform whereby brands can “communicate and connect” with consumers. This can be seen from the growing interest in sport among women. Reebok has therefore adopted a position that targets women not only in China but across Asia, including India, where it is the top athletic brand. Using the Olympics as a platform, Reebok also came up with specially designed shoes to advertise itself. With more and more such sporting events such as Youth Olympic Games, Winter Olympics and the Asian Games being held all over the world, it is only natural that the pressure to keep up with the growing competition has resulted in various marketing strategies from one company to another. Sports firm Puma, like Reebok has also strengthened its position as a sports-lifestyle brand with a basis in athletics and fashion. This has also proved to be the same for sporting brands such as Nike and Adidas.
Twelve months after the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, China’s home-grown badminton brand, Li Ning has decided to launch a new flagship outlet outside of China, in Singapore. While going global for international brands such as Adidas or Nike may not be anything unusual, it is indeed a huge achievement for Chinese sports brands. This unusual step out of homeland was due to the exposure the brand received during the Games itself. With badminton being the top five most popular and influential sports in Singapore, Li Ning’s opened its first international store in ION Orchard and is the first out of 70 to 100 overseas outlets. In its attempt to further its global expansion into Southeast Asia, Li Ning has made use of the 2008 Beijing Olympics as a useful platform to make itself known to the world by sending out the message of being able to perform breakthroughs since they are the official team sponsor of the world’s top badminton team. To ensure maximum exposure and reach of its message in Singapore, Li Ning has engaged in various advertisement methods. Popcorn bags at The Cathay will carry Li Ning advertisement. Five large posters located at Cathay Orchard Cineleisure are also deployed to by the firm to make their presence in Singapore known.
It is therefore evident that sports can bring about changes in the economy not only of a country but also of a firm. Unknown to the masses, sports encompasses a lot more than just the action involved, which is so often publicized. It is indeed a fact that the sporting arena does indeed bring about economic advantages and disadvantages.

References:
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/beijing/national-stadium.htm
http://www.media.asia/searcharticle/2009_07/Li-Ning-opens-first-flagship-store-outside-China/36391 http://www.media.asia/searcharticle/2009_08/Olympic-effect-drives-sports-brands/36591
http://www.jcdecaux.com.sg/content/news/20090731.htm
http://epiac1216.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/the-total-cost-of-the-beijings-summer-olympic-games/


PRATIKA YASHASWI 03/10
Sports and Economics


The economics of Cricket in India
India is a nation ravaged by such a feverish enthusiasm for the game of cricket that it can be an attribute to the nation’s unity. To illustrate this point: India has about 1/3 of the world’s poor residing in it. It is a place often associated with unhygienic slums, cheap labor and corrupted politics. It faces almost every imaginable urban problem at several levels. People tend to think of it as a dusty and dirty place, full of touts and chaos. In fact the current generation of students studying in India is told that they should study hard so that they can move OUT to cleaner, greener pastures and gain the coveted status of Non Residential Indians. Yet in these depressing circumstances, when India plays in a tournament, an entire nation is glued to their television sets, united in some kind of love for sport. All barriers of religion, caste and culture are broken. India becomes a cricket lover’s nation during the time of the Indian Premier League. People take days off from work, afternoon supplementary classes are cancelled in schools and children are either watching cricket or playing it. When India wins a cricket match the whole country erupts into applause and cheer. Sweets are distributed, beggars dance on the streets and people’s spirits are instantly lifted. All the problems India faces, all the causes for complaints, the malnutrition, the poverty, the hunger, the thirst, the backwardness, the dirty politics, everything is forgotten, everything vanishes in the light of a victory. When India wins a cricket match, forget everything, this is one place where we can win. As can be seen the amount of love for the game in the nation is bordering a mania, the craze for international football, soccer, and F1 is nothing compared to this infatuation.
Pair this potent addiction with an upcoming middle class in a booming economy and you have a highly lucrative market with many possibilities. Naturally, entrepreneurs find this sensation an extremely profitable exploit and this is where the economics of the sport comes in. It began with the 1996 World Cup propagated by the late Bill Sinrich, one of the leading sports executives of his day. The 1996 World Cup totally transformed the economic equation of cricket “..Cricket boards have benefited from bigger TV deals as the decade has worn on. Sky, for instance, paid the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) $475 million for four-year rights last year. The Indian Cricket Council (ICC), which reportedly had $25,000 in its kitty in 1997, has not missed out, netting comfortably over a billion dollars for eight-year rights for its events...” topping everything else, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), mints by the millions from telecasting the matches in major tournaments like the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Indian Cricket League (ICL). Nimbus paid $612 million for four-year rights to Indian cricket, and separate deals came in with the IPL and Champions League.
Cricketers are as famous as Bollywood celebrities, cricketers are loved and worshipped whether they win or lose. The money that comes from the sport is not restricted to the sponsorships and major tournaments alone but also in the merchandise and the marketing spin offs. Ask any child wielding a cricket bat his inspiration and role model and he churns out names like Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, and Anil Kumble who have each brought Indian cricket to greater heights since its position in the 60s. Cricketers are often brand ambassadors for a number of companies in India like Pepsi, Thumbs Up, Lays chips, Boost, Bournvita, and Zandu balm to name a few. They appear in many advertisements on television, for goods ranging from toothpaste to insurance. Sachin Tendulkar has endorsed more than 25 brands throughout his career of 20 years.
Hence, cricket is fueled and kept going mainly because of its surging market, advertising and marketing help bring the game to the world and keep it going. Hockey, the official national sport of India is not given to such a fan following or media coverage. Cricket is often considered the de facto national sport of India. A sport is kept alive because people keep playing it and it reaches a wider audience. India being of a large population of people, has a vibrant market demand for entertainment and owing to this, cricket is more sensational here than any other country in the world. While some may argue that the sport is being corrupted by mercenary pursuits, taking the focus off good playing and placing it on money, it is not true because despite all the mercenary benefits cricketers are under pressure to perform well and keep their sponsorships and advertising deals coming. Indian cricketers have been consistently ranked top in test matches in the Indian Premier league and in International cricket. Economics is what keeps a game alive.

This book by Humphrey Hawkins is great! It is fascinating investigating the state of democracy in the world now. Do we want DEMOCRACY?

Read this and be enlightened about the basics of Democracy and the future of Democracy. I enjoyed it and read the book til past midnight! Enjoy and tell me in the comment how you liked it too.

www.theage.com.au

Free trade is not fair trade for the poor

By Jack De Groot
December 14, 2005

THE world's trade ministers meeting in Hong Kong this week carry with them much more than just the aspirations of their own vocal farm lobbies and exporters. The silent hopes of millions of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people will also rest on their shoulders.

Trade, when combined with more and better aid and debt relief, has an enormous role to play in making poverty history. A 1 per cent increase in developing countries' share of world exports could lift 128 million people out of poverty.

But without ministers taking concrete steps towards a substantial overhaul of the global trading system at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong, developing countries will continue to get a raw deal — particularly on agriculture.

We all rely on agriculture to feed us. In the world's poorest countries, seven out of every 10 people also depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Yet nearly 900 million people in these countries do not have enough food to eat and despite being home to 98 per cent of the world's farming population, developing countries capture just a third of agricultural trade.

For too long rich countries have been manipulating international trade rules to protect their own interests.

The United States, the European Union, Japan and other rich countries insist that poor countries open their markets to all their exports while they spend around $300 billion each year subsidising and protecting their own farm industries — more than the combined income of the world's poorest 1.2 billion people.

These subsidies lead to massive overproduction of most farm products, which rich countries then dump on world markets at prices well below the cost of production, making it impossible for agricultural exporters from poor countries to compete.

This must stop and the Make Poverty History coalition in Australia supports efforts at the WTO meeting — including the strong push by the Australian Government, for rich countries to end all forms of dumping and instigate meaningful cuts to trade-distorting farm subsidies.

Taking a purely "free trade" approach is not the best way to eliminate poverty.

Even if these farm subsidies and dumping were scrapped tomorrow, many of the poorest people in developing countries would not be able to benefit from the change without further support.

Rich countries, including Australia, would also have to stop trying to force developing countries to open up their agricultural markets, without consideration for the impact this will have on the most marginalised members of their societies.

Forcing developing countries to open their markets too quickly and too deeply can have devastating effects, including putting millions out of work, increasing poverty, stymieing development, undermining food security and even creating political instability and conflict. Developing countries must be allowed to retain some control over how fast and how far they open their markets when the livelihoods of millions of their poorest are at stake.

Developed countries must also acknowledge that aid and trade are inseparable, rather than seeing them as competing solutions to poverty.

For poor countries to benefit from fairer trade they need more and better aid aimed at improving health, education, roads, ports, electricity, telecommunications, banking and legal systems. As, without a healthy and highly skilled workforce and functional infrastructure, transport, legal and commercial systems most poor countries will not be able to take up the new export opportunities offered by fairer trade.

If fairer trade rules were combined with more and better aid and debt relief, in this way the silent call to end global poverty may finally be answered.

Jack de Groot is chairman of Make Poverty History (Australia), a coalition of more than 70 organisations fighting poverty.

Mar 12, 2010
All right to fool around?
Some men say that philandering is okay but what if your own daughters turn out to be the victims in the future?
By john lui, viewpoint, The Straits Times

Adulterer Jack Neo's air of wounded male pride at yesterday's press conference reminded me of a lesson in morality I received last year.

I had visited the home of millionaire Felix Ong to interview him about his self-produced calendars. They feature his sayings and one of them goes: 'Good men: Acting cool is not a crime. Having physical desires is not a sin. Just remember that at the end of the day, home is where you belong.'

We ended up talking about fidelity, of course.

What he said floored me. Not because it was new or particularly deviant, but because he was the first man I had ever known to put on record what many of us know.

Among Chinese men in Singapore, there is an honour code that applies to sex outside marriage which can be summed up as: Do what you like outside, just do not bring it home.

As long as this code is adhered to, the extramarital exploits of married men, no matter how repulsive one may find them, are still within tolerable limits.

The ex-Rediffusion Hokkien-language presenter, singer, emcee, playwright and part-time actor knew enough to say that he was not encouraging cheating.

Mr Ong, 62, who made his millions after he sold his precision metal parts firm Seksun Corporation, liked to think of himself as an amateur social scientist and occasional marriage counsellor and he was simply describing a basic male impulse. Smart wives should just ignore it, he says.

'Do not expect every man to be loyal. Maybe one out of 1,000 will be. You cannot stop a man from doing what he wants when he travels out of Singapore. Put a box of condoms in his suitcase. Be safe. You cannot beat it, so follow it. If you keep on being jealous, you will spoil the relationship.'

In many ways, what he was saying varied only slightly from the values of the Sicilian-American mobsters from one of my favourite TV shows, the HBO drama series The Sopranos.

The gangsters fiercely believed in family values and were wiling to kill and die over family honour, yet all of them had mistresses, and wives who tolerated them.

The lengths the men would go to keep the boundaries between family and mistress intact provided the show with much of its humour.

The code, that even went into detail about what 'clean' and 'dirty' acts were between a mistress and her keeper, was deadly serious to the men. But to an observer like me, they are seen for what they are: Comical rationalisations for self-indulgence.

It really is no different from other self-serving rationalisations I have heard, such as the old one that goes 'I know someone who has smoked for 40 years and is still perfectly healthy'.

I have men friends who are married and go to hostess lounges and see no shame in it. Shame is not being able to provide for the family.

Men kill themselves because they fail to put food on the family table, but not when they have broken the vow of monogamy.

There is another Chinese saying that backs up what Mr Ong says.

The phrase in Mandarin 'nan ren bu huai, nu ren bu ai' translates as 'good guys do not get the girls', which is almost like saying that cheaters stand a better chance of getting married.

Case in point: Tiger Woods, the golfer who was caught in the same situation as Jack Neo. The watchmaker Tag Heuer, along with several other companies, stopped sponsoring him. But Tag Heuer chief exeucutive Jean-Christophe Babin says the brand kept using his image in China.

'In China, conversely, you have Tag Heuer with Tiger Woods everywhere because with the Chinese, it rather increases their esteem. In China, by tradition, your success is measured by your number of mistresses,' he says.

There is one big difference between Tiger Woods and Jack Neo's philandering. Woods had sex with adult women while Neo seemed to have hit on very young women who were looking to break into showbusiness.

None of the women that Neo is linked with could be called mistresses in the strict sense of the word, but he did become intimate with one of them and there have been several forum posters who have given him pats on the back for trying so hard to increase his 'score'.

These macho men and virile stallions who prefer to live in a world where their impulses are not only tolerated, but justified by an unwritten 'brotherhood code' should remember that this is the world they leave behind to their daughters.

As Neo's own comedies like to emphasise, when karma bites, the laughter stops.

What is your view? Justify your answer by examining one issue raised by the writer. Support your discussion with specific example or evidence from your own observation/ research. Please indicate your name at the end of your post.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/449

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT WOMEN IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD HAVE NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD.

Check out the cogent arguments presented.