Whenever I stop

I want to stop,

my brain tells me so,

but when I do,

I get

further

further

and further away.

I really want to stop,

my body tells me so,

but when I do,

I get

further

further

and further away.

I have to stop,

my brain's dying,

but when I do,

I get

further

further

and further away.

I really have to stop,

my body's dying,

but when I do,

I get

further

further

and further away.

I must stop,

so says my heart

but when I do,

I drift

further

further

and further away,

till I saw the angels and the clouds.

No more long bus rides?

No more long bus ride? More short-distance bus rides? Would this benefit us or trouble us instead?

Personally speaking, I do not actually think that more short-distance rides would actually benefit us at all. The intention of the LTA for pushing forth such a policy is so that they would be able to solve the problem off having too long waiting times for buses. However, in trying to tackle such a problem, the LTA might have actually inconvenience the rest of those who do not really mind the long bus waits. What are the advantages of having long bus rides that caused such a debate?

With the long bus rides, the commuters going to work or to school would be able to catch up on lost sleep. They wake up early in the morning so as to be able to reach their destination on time, and hope to catch up on lost sleep in the bus so as not to feel too tired later on in the day, but with such a new policy, would they still be able to catch up on lost sleep? Probably not. This is because with the new policy, there would be lesser long distance direct buses to get the commuters straight to their destination. With lesser direct buses, it means that they would have to transfer to a MRT station and taking an MRT to the station that is nearest to their destination and then taking another bus to get them to their destination. With more transfers around, how would they be able to sleep on the buses while going to their destinations, when they have to transfer buses every 20 minutes?

Furthermore, such a policy is also very troublesome to some commuters. To some commuters, such a policy would not be a problem to them, since they might be living near their destination or that their destination is right beside an MRT station. However, to some others, it is extremely troublesome. Why is this so? Simple. After taking a bus to the MRT station, they still have to take an MRT before reaching another MRT station and FINALLY reaching their destination after taking ANOTHER bus. Not only does such a policy prevent them from resting on the bus, it also causes a lot of trouble for certain commuters.

Apart from being unable to rest on the buses and it being very troublesome to many commuters, there is another problem for them to face, that is, even longer bus waits. The original purpose of the LTA proposing such a policy is so that the commuters would have to wait less for their buses. Have they actually thought that it may have backfired to those who need to transfer buses/trains often? Whenever they transfer buses/trains, they have to wait even longer for their buses every time?

I believe that with such a new bus policy, it does not actually help many commuters, but trouble them even more. Who knows? Such a policy might even result in them actually being LATE!

Distance fares

On July 3rd, the LTA put forth a new policy to the rest of Singapore. According to them, this policy would allow them to save money when it came to travelling around by bus. However, did this really help us save money? Or was it simply just a policy to help the LTA earn much more money? What is this policy all about, that creates so much debate when it came to whether it helped commuters save, or spend more money?

Just a few years back, one paid the bus fare by entry, for example, when a commuter takes a bus once, and transfers over to the next bus to complete his journey, he has to pay twice the fees needed. Let's say that each time you take a bus, you pay 50 cents. With the old system, when you changed buses twice, you have to pay twice the fee, resulting in the commuter paying a dollar. This means that you pay more when you change more buses, and that it is cheaper to take a direct bus to the desired location. However, the situation is now changed. With the new policy in place, then the situation is reversed instead. One no longer has to pay by the number of times he takes the bus, but by the distance traveled instead. This policy benefits those who transfer buses often, as they no longer have to pay by the amount of buses they take, which would lead to a high bus fare since they transfer buses a lot, but pay by the amount of distance traveled.

Such a policy has its advantages and its disadvantages. The advantages of such is that it benefits those that transfer to other buses very often to complete their journey. The downside of such a policy is that it does not benefit those that actually take direct buses to their desired locations. Think of it this way. A commuter who has to take a direct bus to his desired location, say from Choa Chu Kang to Tampines, has to pay for the entry fee for the bus ride, say 50 cents. This small sum of money would allow him to reach his desired location. However, with a new policy, the same commuter has to pay a lot more since the bus fare is calculated by the amount of distance traveled and not the number of times he or she enters the bus. This results in him not just being unable to save money, but ending up paying more.

Let's have an example to allow ourselves to picture better. When a student like me takes a direct bus ride from my school to my house, I only need to pay 55 cents for the bus fare, since I only entered a bus once. However with this new policy, I instead have to pay 80 cents instead of the original 55 cents. If I take the bus for 5 days a week, that means I have to pay 25 cents more every day. I would have to pay 5 dollars more than I usually have to with the old policy. Does this actually help us to save money? Does it? IT DOES NOT.

I am not saying that it would not save money for ALL of us but majority of us. This does not mean that the LTA has not thought of anything to actually try to benefit those who do not benefit from the policy. There are policies to allow such a policy to benefit everyone. What is this policy then?

This policy is to reduce the amount of direct buses but instead increase the number of buses that lead to MRT stations instead, so that commuters can take a bus to an MRT station and continue their journey by MRT. HOWEVER, does this really benefit us? Would such a policy be a curse of a blessing?

I believe that such a policy is more of a CURSE than a blessing. Why do I think so? I would finish up this topic in the next post.

Book review: The Final Days

Title: The Final Days

Author: Alex Chance

What it is about:

Karen Wiley, recent qualified San Fransisco psychologist, thought she understood moral dilemma. Then an anonymous child cries to her for help via letters: "O God help me hes going to hurt me if you don't do what he says". No one Karen knows is in trouble, but the letters keep coming. Then something far worse: "He knows where you are now I had to give it to him". Until the horror in the Trueblood trailer, Ella McCullers, police chief of Canaan, Utah, believed she knew crises of faith. Abruptly promoted to senior investigator of the state's most high-profile kidnapping case, her only leads are a decaying tombstone, a missing cat and a little mute girl with ghastly formless nightmares. "Daddy says go to the church of the final days" was also another letter sent by the child. In truth , it began with the Cult of the Final Days, and a long-buried history of murder. Now Karen Wiley must cross the desert wilderness to play a deadly game disguised as a righteous quest for the truth.

Personal opinion:

I think that this is a very interesting book for a few reasons, namely the suspense that is created, the different viewpoints and language that is used to show the characteristics of each character, and the eerie atmosphere created by the letters

The suspense in the book was built up gradually, unlike most of the other thrillers that I have read, which does not have this element of suspense in the plot. The books starts out with the mind of a madman, which leaves the readers in suspense, as we gasp in horror at what he does at the start of the book. This suspense is built gradually as he starts to talk about his fetish for phone books to target his new victims. We do not know who he really is at the start of the book and are left in suspense as why he was introduced as the first chapter is not immediately revealed to us. Such an introduction entices us to read on. No one except for Karen trusted the letter and this also builds up the suspense gradually as it isolates her from the rest of the world. This gives us the feeling that she is the only one who was in danger, and this builds up the suspense, as part of us actually worry for her while reading the book.

The choice of words and scenes in the book is also something that I enjoy in the book, as it clearly depicts the characteristics of each specific character. The first character that is introduced in the story is Jon Peterson. He is introduced as a madman and this is clearly shown in his weird fetish for phone books. He is further depicted as such by him targeting his random victims by using the phone books. However, the diction changed when introducing Karen Wiley, and the choice of words give us the impression of a slightly confused but reliable adult instead of the delusional madman introduced earlier. The diction was then changed again to show the innocence of a young child of the two divorced couple, when she just wanted to make her father happy. This change of diction to introduce the character's characteristics is interesting and allows us to fully grasp the atmosphere.

Piano

Its dark black structure

filling the room with sounds

Its stream of queer buttons

filling the room with creativity

Its wooden base

filling the room with strength

Its inner mechanism

filling the air with energy

Its dark black structure

Its stream of queer buttons

Its wooden base

Its inner mechanism

Filling the air with music.

Flash Floods that sparked off the lame blame game

Some people grumble and mumbled to themselves as they secured their pants above their knees and trudged through the flood waters even above their knees. More people swore and complained to themselves as their car engines died down gradually, going to a complete stop. Most just gasped at the sight of their destroyed goods. Then the lame blame game starts as everyone starts complaining. "It's the government's fault for not making sure this would never happen". "It's the PUB's fault for not properly maintaining the drainage systems". As the blame game continues, no one actually stopped to think what is the main cause of the entire incident is. Is it really the drainage systems? Is it really the government? Or is it simply an incident that happens once in a blue moon?

In my opinion, the people are not particularly correct either. Look at what they have done to try to "alleviate" the floods. Complain, grumble, curse, swear and the list goes on forever. However, have they actually thought about how the government may not always be the ones at fault? Have they ever thought about how they may be other factors that are beyond the government's control? No, they have not. They only know how to play the lame blame game but never thought about how unreasonable their demands may be. They demand that Singapore must be a flood-free country. The government tries their best to give it to them, but is it really possible, when there are also other factors that may be preventing a flood-free Singapore? Perhaps a suggestion: Mother Nature. The participants of the lame blame game never really stopped to think that such floods may simply be a phenomenon that happens once in may years. Think of it this way, the average rainfall per month for Singapore that month was about 150mm. All that rain fell in two hours. How is it possible that the people are unable to comprehend the fact that it is impossible to stop such an incident from happening? How is possible that the government still blames the PUB for such an occurrence? The people do not even try to understand the governments plight and how it did try to prevent such events from happening. They only played the lame blame game and made the government the ultimate culprit of a trick played by Mother Nature.

I'm not trying to imply that the government is entirely faultless in this event. Think of it this way, the government desperately tries to cover up their faults by pushing the blame to PUB or a clogged drain. Doesn't this just make the government look highly incompetent, when it does not even admit that they MAY be a cause of the flood and that pushing the blame to others just make it even more so? They blame the clogged drain but they did not really stop to think how it was near impossible that the drain could even get clogged to begin with. The drain was as large as the width of and SBS bus. You don't see debris as large as SBS buses suddenly floating down the drains and clogging them everyday do you? It just looks like a dumb excuse that the government came up with to cover up for themselves, since they think that they may be the cause for it. Furthermore, they blame PUB for not checking the drains frequently enough to prevent the flood. However, they did not stop to think that PUB might have checked the drains frequently? The drains were indeed checked by the PUB a mere three months ago and the drain was clear then. That did not stop the floods did it?

What I'm trying to say is that the people should just shut up and think for that one moment that they should not blame the impossible on the government and that the government should see how it may be one of the causes of the floods to begin with. The lame blame game is pointless. Both parties are to blame.

Expository essay exercise: What makes a superhero?

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s Superman! You look at your favourite superhero soaring across the sky to save the damsel in distress. You gasp in fascination as your favourite superhero lifts cars and thrashes villains. We all know that they are more than just a sack of flesh, blood and bones, but has anyone actually stopped to think what makes them “super”? Has anyone stopped to think what makes them different from a “hero” that leaps into the air and crashes down almost immediately? What makes them so special? Without the brain of a fool, all the luck in the world, and a high-tech costume, a superhero would be no different from an average schoolboy with an “S” on his T-shirt and his briefs outside his pants.

The brain of a fool is highly essential in a superhero. Think of it this way. Without the brain of a fool, would the superhero be rush stupidly into danger to save the damsel in distress when there is a monster or an alien the size of a skyscraper? Probably not. If Superman had the brain of an average kindergarten kid, he would have realized that monsters were scary and that it would be pointless when the monster could break him like a toothpick. If he had half the brain of an average teenager he would have realized his outfit would have looked ridiculous. However, it is exactly because superheroes do not possess the brain of a scholar that makes them so heroic. Spiderman was battling a 100-foot tall pile of sand that could never be destroyed but that did not stop him from diving head-first into danger. He simply went “Mary Jane!” and rushed to save her without actually thinking how impossible the task was. It may also be the fact that it was because of him having the brain of a fool that he thought he could have killed the pile of sand somehow.

Luck is the next most important thing that must never be lacking in a superhero. Ultraman gets thrashed around by huge aliens time and time again, and more often than not, his little LED on his chest flickers red and he lies on the ground half-dead while the city screams in horror at the sight of the mutation that threw Ultraman off the ground. Lucky for Ultraman, the alien creeps towards him at the speed of a snail. By the time it reaches Ultraman, he recovered miraculously and jumps up again and throws the alien back into space. Without his insane amount of luck, he would have met a lightning-quick aliend that would have thrown Ultraman down and ended him there and then. Another superhero with that requires luck is probably Ironman, where with a lot of luck, his beam touches that of his ally’s and it created an explosion, killing the enemy. He would simply kill his ally by missing if he had no luck to speak of.

A high-tech costume is the most important in a superhero. Spiderman would not be shooting webs if he did not have a super suit that does it for him. Imagine, would Superman be able to attract the attention of his enemy, if he did not wear his red briefs outside a ridiculous blue suit? Would the Hulk be able to show his power if there was not a suit for him to burst out of and scare the enemy into surrendering? This shows the importance of a suit to a superhero. An “S” on your suit would not save your life, the suit would.

Without the brain, the luck and the suit, “super” would be erased from the dictionary of the superheroes. Without them, you would get insane fools jumping from building to building, and falling to their deaths in the most comical manner if they failed to have a firm step.

Conscience

Can I steal it?

Yes, yes please do.

No, don't else you would be in trouble.

Can I skip school?

Yes, we can go places.

No, no, please don't.

Can I sneak out?

Yes, yes please do.

No, no your Mum would be angry,

Can I do it?

Can I,

Can I,

Can I?

Yes, yes please do, you know you want to.

There was no answer at all.

The sadness of life

When you want to let trouble fly,
when you want to close your eyes,
something,
somewhere,
tells you it ain't right
and you brain fights,
to erase the fatigue,
to ease the pain,
but fails.
The sadness of life.

When you are primary one --> Exams or not?

When you were primary one, how did you feel because of exams? Stressed? Relax? Or simply too caught up in the fun of making friends to actually care?

I am quite sure that many of the primary one students in schools before such a program changed the system have encountered the ultimate challenge in life: Stress. Perhaps it is not only these students giving themselves this stress. Has anyone actually stopped to think that there are also other factors that lead to these young children feeling the stress of the exams?

A common factor in creating such stress for the primary one students is their parents. Most of the parents that enter their child into the school for the first time are not sure of what to expect at the end of the year. Difficult questions for their children in the test? Easy questions that they can breeze through? Due to these doubts that parents have about what to expect for their child, they "force" their children to study for hours and hours "just in case". Forcing them to study so much is probably to make sure that they would definitely ace their exams with ease and hence would not have to worry so much about their exams, resulting in lesser stress. However, did any of these parents actually stop to ponder about what could have really caused stress for their children? These primary one students are young children just fresh out of kindergarten, is it necessary to pile them up with so much stress just because of the exams?

Many parents give their children stress due to the exams. It is because of the exams that there are parents like these that exist in our society. It is because of the exams that these primary one students feel stress. Is this stress really necessary at such a young age? What if the exams were removed just for one year? Would that change anything?

I believe that removing the exams for the primary one students for just their first year in their primary schools is probably one of the best decisions made. Think of it this way. they just emerged out of kindergarten, without actually knowing how life in primary school would be like. They just emerged out of kindergarten, with no clue how different life in kindergarten and in primary school can be. Shouldn't we allow them to get used to such an environment before actually throwing the pressure that our society faces at them? Shouldn't we allow them to familiarise themselves with such a strange and new atmosphere before letting them face the unnecessary pressure?

Without the exams for just that one year, the primary one students would be able to make friends, to familiarise themselves with the new study system, to know that there are people who care about them in the school. They would be able to adapt to such a strange and new environment and possibly even study better than they would with exams. Another way of looking at it would be that with the exams, they may not have familiarised themselves with the new study environment they may not perform as well as they would when they are familiar to the new study atmosphere. Furthermore, I believe that one's interest in something would result in him or her learning faster than they would when they are not interested to begin with. I feel that first year of the students primary school life should be spent on trying to gain an interest in studying, instead of already starting preparations for tests. Teachers should teach material that would pique the interest of the students in the class and this would allow them to find studying interesting. This interest would result in them either being very enthusiastic when taught topics that would be tested in the exams next year or do more research on their own, resulting in even better grades.

The good thing about these primary one students not having exams for their first year is that they would not face any pressure at all. It is also because there is no pressure that makes having no exams for the first year slightly worrying.

With no stress at all, would the students learn to adapt to the slightly more hectic school life in future? With no stress at all, would they be able to survive in such a fast-paced society like ours?Probably not. Apart from being unable to adapt to the hectic lifestyle that they would face in future, they would also find it hard to adapt to the exam conditions set during their exams in their second year. They would be clueless about what to do, clueless about time management, and clueless about how important the exams really are to them. Is this what we want to achieve by removing the exams for a year from their lives? Most probably not. Furthermore, with no stress at all, would the primary one students still concentrate in class? Most probably not, since they know they would not be tested anyway, and would not even bother looking through what they have done before at all, making going to school rather pointless.

Simply because of this problem, I do not think that the exams should be completely removed. I believe that there should be an exam at the end of the year, but the questions set would be much easier. The purpose of this exam would simply be to let the student have a taste of the exam conditions so that he or she would not be entirely clueless when he takes the exams in the following year. Knowing that there would be exams would also force them to concentrate in class as they know that they would be tested and would hence study a little for it.

Hence, I believe that having no exams at all would have also rather adverse effects despite having multiple good points too.

Letting go of the cane

Over the years I have become less and less convinced of the merits of spanking a child. It is not the ideal way to raise one.

At best, it is the quickest solution to a long-term challenge.

As a parent myself, I have wavered between periods of spanking and not spanking, imagining it to be joyless but an occasionally necessary evil.

Now I am resolved not to spank my children at all – or at least, to die trying.

Those who support corporal punishment point to how we were all beaten as children and grew up none the worse for it. Most of us are fairly responsible citizens.

Then they point to how children those days are naughtier than before – more defiant, less respectful – and the difference, they say, is that they get away with more now.

But whether children are truly worse now than in the past has not been shown either way. They are certainly different; they come to things much earlier than we did.

But like all children, past and present, they need guidance.

And when it comes to discipline, schools can only do so much.

Parents have the unenviable lion’s share of raising them so they become responsible, respectful and resourceful adults.

Using the cane, however, is unlikely to be the most constructive way to achieve this.

Perhaps it’s true that most of us turned out all right despite having been caned as children.

The untestable hypothesis is whether we would have turned out better without it.

And even if it did us no lasting damage, what exactly was it supposed to achieve?

That was something I could never resolve, even in those moments I stood brandishing a cane in order to bend a child to my will.

Is the rod punishment or deterrent?

A deterrent would be like those anti-barking collars, which zaps dogs with a jolt of electricity every time they yap. Soon they learn to keep their mouths shut.

The problem with using the canes that way was, it wasn’t all that effective.

My children seemed as likely to commit the same infringements as before. Would I have to beat them to a pulp before they got the message? Did I have to up the ante every time?

I know of someone who got out his belt so often that his son eventually would just bring it to him and say, “Not too hard, please.”

That’s a tough kid. But is he a better one?

As for caning as punishment, many parents use it as such.

But there are other forms of punishment which may be just as effective without being violent. Remove all privileges. Ground them. Put them down to work. Hey, get creative.

Parent already have power over their children, simply by being their sole providers. They don’t need a big stick to prove it.

The sinister thing about corporal punishment is that it’s often just sheer venting. The line between discipline and abuse is probably crossed too often.

They tell you to be calm while administering a spanking, but the truth is that most parents hit their children when they are angry.

And children are utterly defenseless in such moments. There is no quid pro quo. I can hit you but you hit me back and you are in big trouble.

Smacking your little one out of anger is the worst feeling.

There are few more draining responsibilities than parenting. It taxes all your reserves of patience and wisdom, and there’s nothing like having a child to discover how little you may have of either.

It doesn’t help if your life is claimed by many other things – that necessary evil called work, for example.

The lack of time is the greatest enemy of parents, not the lack of corporal punishment.

When time is of the essence, it’s tempting to take the easy way out: give in (Junior doesn’t want to tidy up his room? Never mind, the maid can do it), or shut down a situation quickly by using force.

Either way, the idea is to avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues.

But discipline is not about making children behave better, or making them more amenable and agreeable.

It’s about empowerment, so they can deal with all those demands of life on their own once you have to let them go.

This means making time and space to listen to what they really need – which may be expressed in unlikable, even unacceptable, ways – and then thinking through a solution. Not wielding a rod to gain instant compliance.

It’s a tall order which I fail all the time to live up to.

But I know I have to try, because if I’m not on my child’s side, who’s going to be?

R. WILKS HCI 3/05

Personal response:

I do not totally agree with the writer’s views.

I do not agree with the point that the writer has made regarding the fact that parents should not use “corporal punishment” to punish and educate the child but should instead use other methods such as “making time and space to listen to what they really have to say”. The writer is under the assumption that such a method would work and that the child would be educated in a way that would give desired results. The fact that the children who educated in such a way may actually turn out in the opposite undesired way as they might even take whatever “time and space” that the parent has given him or her and might actually think that the parent is being too soft.

What I think would be a more appropriate way of handling such a matter is that the parent should first start with analyzing the working method of the two methods (corporal punishment or listening to the child and educating him or her slowly) before proceeding with the appropriate punishment/education method. If the parent is unable to properly analyze the child’s character and use the appropriate method, then the parent can use a more “open” method such as simply communicating and negotiating with the child first, so that both parent and child can come to a mutual understanding, and hence preventing the possibility of a backfire.

I also do not agree with the writer about the fact that parents usually hit or punish their children simply out of anger. I actually think that these parents actually hit or punish their children due to the fact that they think that caning can be a deterrent to their wrongdoings, and not just as a simple venting of their rage. The parents think that by punishing their children with “corporal punishment”, they would be able to educate their children into correcting their mistakes as they would “fear” such a punishment again. Hence, I feel that there are parents who actually punish their children with “corporal punishment” and I disagree with the writer that such a method does not work at all, as there is no evidence that is shown by the writer that every single case of using this method to educate the child has not worked at all.

Bijani Twins (Quite an old topic, but I would talk about it anyway)

In 2002-2003, controversy sparked when a neurologist, Dr Keith Goh decided to operate on a conjoined twin. It was worsened when the Bijani Twins did not survive the operation and had to pay the final price for their wish to be separated. Some professionals stated that the doctor should not have conducted the operation due to the high risks involved in it. Some feel that the doctor was over-confident and this might have led to the deaths of two innocent lives.

However, despite the tremendous amount of risk involved the doctors decided to continue with the operation. This was due to the wish by the Bijani Twins to be separated and to each lead their own personal lives. In a letter they wrote for their supporters, they were hoping for this day their whole life. Thus, the doctors wishing to grant them their freedom decided to go on with the operation.

I do not think that the fault lies with the doctors at all. They clearly followed the Hippocratic Oath, with the only intention of wanting to cure the twins. Did they have any intention of killing them from the start? No. The choice of being separated lies with the twins, and this is their choice. The doctors may not be able to change this choice, and hence tried to abide by their wishes, and tried their best to do so. The twins clearly knew the risks of the operation. They knew that by wanting to be separated, they might not make it out of the room alive. Despite knowing these terms, they agreed for the doctors to proceed with the surgery.

How can the doctors be blamed for something that they knew had a considerable amount of risk? All surgeries have risks of failing. This surgery has an even higher risk of failing for the simple fact that it was a brain surgery. The brains of the Bijani twins shared the same artery. The artery is almost impossible to separate as they are the main passageways for blood to flow. This considerable risks were already there from the start, and the Bijani twins knew that. How could the doctors be blamed for the death of the twins, when they have already tried their best? How can they be blamed when the proper procedures are already taken, and there was no negligence showed?

Some actually argue that even attempting the surgery in the first place violates medical ethics. However, does this actually matter? Does this violation of ethics matter? Every surgery has a risk of failure. By trying, would that still be classified as unethical? Think of it from another point of view. If it was unethical to do so, would out medical research be so advanced as it really is now? Probably not, for the simple fact that no one would even dare to try and experiment. I am quite certain that despite the surgery to separate the Bijani twins not being a success, the doctors still learn much from it nonetheless.

In conclusion, I do not think that it is justifiable to blame the doctors for the failure of the operation to separate the Bijani twins, as there were really considerable risks and that they tried their best. Furthermore, without even trying, we may not even be able to reach our current level of medical research now.