I was flipping through Thrusday's copy of The Straits Times and thought that i would like to share my opinion regarding a certain article dated 16/4/2008 on page 17, WORLD.
Basically, it is entitled "It's PM Putin next month as he becomes party chief". Now, as the title of this entry suggests something to do with power, authority and a MAN at the top of other MEN-if you get what I mean- i cannot help but realise whether we notice that a person, given a taste of leadership with an air of authority around him, would find it difficult to let go off his power. It is as though man tend to regard this sense of authority as a magical spell, bestowed upon him.
Coming back to Putin, it surprises me how a man who has run a coutnry with the biggest land size for two terms as its head-of-state would not want to find a peaceful place in the russian countryside- or be it in Siberia itself- filling his retirement days with nights of vodka and dancing to Kalinka. Afterall, he does deserve a good enough break after all that he has been through : siege in a moscow theatre by extremist Serbs, boosting Russia's once-doomed oil industry, fighting crime and spread of HIV/AIDS as well as going to such far lengths of contributing to the environment, shaking hands with George Bush at the G8 summit meetings.
If his decision to run for party president of United Russia, securing his position as Prime Minister in the Russian Parliaments mainly for the sake of common good as shown by him in the past few years, why not- don't we need such capable and environmentally-friendly men, especially with Al Gore preaching that Global warming is a real threat- "mother earth is hyper-ventilating"- who can't remember that, honestly?
However, Mr Putin himself hasn't had a clean history for all we know. Conspiracies and cover-ups have been part of the "Russian-way-of-life" where men rarely die by accident, pretty much like how the mafias live their lives, with a firm handshake in one hand and an armed gun in the other, usually hidden under the desk while it's bearer offers a staunch smile with a decieving intent beneath it all. None of us can forget the poisoning of once-KGB agent Litvenko by uranium in 2006.Expelled from the KGB shortly after the fall of teh Soviet union for alledgedly abusing his power into the affairs of the Russian parliament, Litvenko became an outspoken opposition to Mr Putin's rule, once exiled to Britain. What compelled people was that how a man, living far from the public eye suddenly die from radioactive poisoning. Surely, somebody who have wanted him killed, but who?
The British pointed out to the Russian administration for carrying out the assasination. So did Litvenko's wife and while a bald, pale and apparently emaciated Litvenko passed away in a hospital bed, knowing that the radioactive substance that was slowly intoxicating his body through his veins and thought of who could have placed such a high price tag on his head, he pointed to the one man who had always opressed him- Putin.
If indeed it was true that Mr Putin did plan the assasination of a former political enemy, then his sly and dishonest means of achieving victory is practically and unanimously unacceptable. In a world where countries depend on each other for survival, we cannot afford to have a traitor amongst us, the one with a knife hidden behind his back with suspicious eyes lurking with every blink.
Even if it were untrue, Mr Putin himself has been shed under much controversy and flak. As former KGB agent and chief, we publicaly declared in 2004 that "The fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest mistake ever made during the 20th century". No leader, who is in the position from which he stands at due to the vote of the people, can denounce democracy in such a way. Moreover, by taking such a backward stand, he may imply to his people that Russia should go back to it's treacherous days under the hammer and sickle. Wouldn't the people want development, prosperity and freedom of speech that were once so restricted by the Politburo? Or even worst, could he, as president of Russia, be enticed by the life-long belief that Russian/soviet leaders were pampered and borguoise, taking bribes under the table; bribes that would meet his desires for more vodka, dancing and the company of women?
Russia, and in fact, any country cannot survive with a leader who is corrupted. The income disparity between the rich and the poor would be as wide as the Grand Canyon. In the case of Russia, her people have been tormented and outcasted for too long, their minds brainwashed by all the years of naivety for propoganda such that they are tuned-in to it. This makes them succpetible to manipulation by their leaders.
For Mr Putin to take on his new role as Prime Minister, it could either spell disaster or better times ahead for the Russian people. Only time will bear its outcome.
Coming back to the topic, we can therefore conclude that man find it extremely diffcult to release himself from the shackles of leadership and authority, mainly for the good of all man or for the good of one man- himself. Yes, he can be driven by greed, avarice, self-fulfilemt, addiction to power or maybe even for the sole-purpose of being a thorn to the the people around him, but be it good or bad, isn't he still rendering service to his people, isn't being a pain in the neck and pushing the people to perform to expectations selflessness for others, that he wants them to share the fruits of labour as well?
You decide.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Mark of a leader ‘not in his top grades’
Academic grades may be important for identifying a future political leader but would not the top criteria that we are looking out for.Summary of Mark of a leader
‘not in
his top grades’
taken from The Straits Times Friday
April 4 2008 H11
Straits times interviewed 10 people with 4 As in their A levels, in response to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s in looking out for a successor, the 10 traits they suggested are “competence, capability, leadership qualities, especially EQ aka Emotional quotient.
An efficient leader would display his /her intellectual as well as problem solving skills, when crisis arise.
One of the examples is the co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates is also a school dropouts.
“Grades are important at the entry point but over the years, they become less and less important.”
PM Lee also highlighted that local talent lost is going to pose a problem for the government to find potential leaders.
However some believe that the problems isn’t brain drain but the lack of interest in politics in our young generation.
People may also get caught up with their desires and dreams, that they do not see the point of getting involve in politics.
Personal opinion
Ohh YES we should not judge a person’s leadership potential based on his/her academic grades.
Oh yah sure, try telling your parents and they will kill you(that’s what I did. Haha).
Well, it may seem that currently, our society is seeking for non-academic qualities, but the truth is they look at your grades more than your inner qualities. Without a couple of decent certificate, you will just have to starve to death. This is the world we are living in. Most of us study (or mug???) throughout our life as students, hoping to get good certificates and eventually a job that we desire.
A small comment: I just feel that the 10 people are too naïve or proud just because of their excellent academic results.
Ohh back to the issue, it seems that the apathy for politics in the youngsters poses a greater challenge than brain drain. Taking me for example, I seriously do not like political issues and I would prefer science related stuff such as research papers and findings. Youngsters nowadays have their own dream to pursue and I trust that most of us do not like to get involved in politics, unless you really want to serve the people and the country. If not for GP I don’t think that I will get in contact with political issue.lol
In conclusion, not everyone cut out to be a leader. Being a leader requires one to meet the minimum academic level, possess the qualities required, and the passion to do politics, don’t you agree?
(@_@) EXileJoKeR
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tick Meng's post on 1 of the "10 IDEAS that are(is) changing the world" ~ Adapted from TIME 24 March 2008
Hic people! I am Tick Meng and I am here to post a review of an article from TIME, 24 March 2008 issue. This article is quite an interesting issue as it talks about the change in 21st centuary, and how it affects the world, TODAY!
This article is quite manageable as it is well classified into 10 different sections, each summarises a different area of studies, and I find it really suitable and good for studying, for GP. =) So hope this review can help readers of this blog, better understand the different topics and apply it into your essays. =)
As the article is 16 pages long, so I decided to focus on one of the ten topics to focus on~ "The End of Customer Service."
#2 The End of Customer Service
Topic: Technology --> Social
Writer of article: Barbara Kiviat
Introduction: "With self-serve technology, you'll never have to see a clerk again."
In the past, what happened in grocery stores is that, people who wanted a particular item, the grocer will fetch the item/s from the store. As a result of this, queues get long and marketing becomes inconvenient. With that, a new idea of "self serving store" was first introduced in 1916. Patrons can move freely in the shop and pay for the products at the counter.
Soon, similar ideas of self serving technology come into play. For example, ATM and online booking tickey systems. Aim of such ideas today, aims to increase efficiency and save up unneccessary cost.
For the idea:
Who on earth doesn't want a better quality of life? Having an end to customer service and using self-served technology will definitely bring in an increased in efficiency. With that, it means that more money will be made within a similar period of time as compared to customer service. Companies get to earn more revenue from the increased efficiency. Patrons will get quick service and sometimes, even services that are instant. Eitherways, both companies and patrons benefit. Thus, this brings in a better quality of life.
Also, by having a self-served technology, there is a shift in responsibilty and the workload to the patrons. For example, ATM (Automated Transaction Machine), patrons key in the amount they want, and they get the amount of money based on what they want. No longer, do you see Bankers doing the transaction. Workload on the bankers decreased.
Another example, services like ticketing system in system. As we know that booking of ticket is readily available anytime, anywhere, as long as you have a computer and an internet access. Just a few clicks, and you can book you tickets in a desired location and timeslot. You see, self services like this, allows patrons to be served 24/7, all around the clock, anywhere.
Against the idea:
Self-service would mean no longer a need for a clerk. Money is spent on automated machinese, rather than hiring more clerks, to increase in efficiency. By doing so, it directly means that during this revolution of customer to self-help service, clerks are largely retrenched. In simple, unemployment. Sadly, the article did not quote the impact of the degree of unemployment, but the service sector is so big, in today's context, I am sure the impact is quite on the number unemployed.
Also, by having self-service, trust and responsibility is passed on to the patron. This means that, problems like shoplifting or vandalism will occur. Example, in Singapore's grocery stores like NTUC or Sheng Shiong, we often encounter problems like shoplifting. Some patrons just take and leave without paying. There arent any scanning system to detect theft as food products like fresh meat and unpacked fruits, cannot be "scanned". Therefore, not just taht self-service is prone to such issues, a lack of shopkeepers increase the chance of such problems. Another common example, is the vending machinese lying at public locations. At nights, there are people who meddle with the vending machinese for money, or even vandalise these public policies. As can be seen, self-service ain't totally full-proof against problems.
Lastly, we know that self-service derive from the advance in technology. Thus, the use of self technology is limited to the knowledge of technology. For example, some services like booking movie tickets online requires an internet access and a computer. So people, probably elderly, who does not how to use a computer, are not able to enjoy such facilities.
My stand:
Really very ironically, I thought that I would support the idea of self-servicing... But after typing out both sides of the argument, I come to the conclusion that I am not supportive of the idea. The problem is that, if the use of self-service is to increase the revenue and efficiency, shoplifting or vandalism already creates a downhill in the cost. Making machines require cost. And machines are not cheap. Imagine the impact of lost if the machinese are damaged, or goods that cost alot are stolen. Also, self service aims to increase efficiency. If patrons are not able to use the service, for example the 24/7 movie booking system, it is equivalent to not having the service. At the end of the day, the loss may be equivilant to not having usual customer services.
Also, the use of self-service can never be completely acceptable fully. For example, the use of ATM. There was once, i remembered I tried to withdraw money from the ATM machine. However, the machine has no more fifty dollar notes. You see, even a self-service machine requires banks to place money into the machine. It can never be acceptable as self-service. Also, in grocery stores, you will still need a few cashiers to make the payment, after fetching the goods. It is not fully practical to make the payment automatically as inflexible problems come in like, deciding not to buy the goods after scanning, or querying about the pricing etc. -- This can never be done completely with self-service. At least at today's context. I dare not comment on the future. =)
In conclusion, I am not really supportive of the idea of adapting the idea completely today, at least with the current state of technology. However, we have to be practical. It is a fact that the world is revolving around self-service. Everything is self service and automated.
Well, that is the end of my argument. Hope you guys enjoy reading it. =) Anybody who have any views on the issues I mentioned, feel free to let me know or tag on the tagboard. That should be the way of learning GP. =)
~Tick Meng =)
"10 IDEAS that are changing the world"
This article is quite manageable as it is well classified into 10 different sections, each summarises a different area of studies, and I find it really suitable and good for studying, for GP. =) So hope this review can help readers of this blog, better understand the different topics and apply it into your essays. =)
As the article is 16 pages long, so I decided to focus on one of the ten topics to focus on~ "The End of Customer Service."
#2 The End of Customer Service
Topic: Technology --> Social
Writer of article: Barbara Kiviat
Introduction: "With self-serve technology, you'll never have to see a clerk again."
In the past, what happened in grocery stores is that, people who wanted a particular item, the grocer will fetch the item/s from the store. As a result of this, queues get long and marketing becomes inconvenient. With that, a new idea of "self serving store" was first introduced in 1916. Patrons can move freely in the shop and pay for the products at the counter.
Soon, similar ideas of self serving technology come into play. For example, ATM and online booking tickey systems. Aim of such ideas today, aims to increase efficiency and save up unneccessary cost.
For the idea:
Who on earth doesn't want a better quality of life? Having an end to customer service and using self-served technology will definitely bring in an increased in efficiency. With that, it means that more money will be made within a similar period of time as compared to customer service. Companies get to earn more revenue from the increased efficiency. Patrons will get quick service and sometimes, even services that are instant. Eitherways, both companies and patrons benefit. Thus, this brings in a better quality of life.
Also, by having a self-served technology, there is a shift in responsibilty and the workload to the patrons. For example, ATM (Automated Transaction Machine), patrons key in the amount they want, and they get the amount of money based on what they want. No longer, do you see Bankers doing the transaction. Workload on the bankers decreased.
Another example, services like ticketing system in system. As we know that booking of ticket is readily available anytime, anywhere, as long as you have a computer and an internet access. Just a few clicks, and you can book you tickets in a desired location and timeslot. You see, self services like this, allows patrons to be served 24/7, all around the clock, anywhere.
Against the idea:
Self-service would mean no longer a need for a clerk. Money is spent on automated machinese, rather than hiring more clerks, to increase in efficiency. By doing so, it directly means that during this revolution of customer to self-help service, clerks are largely retrenched. In simple, unemployment. Sadly, the article did not quote the impact of the degree of unemployment, but the service sector is so big, in today's context, I am sure the impact is quite on the number unemployed.
Also, by having self-service, trust and responsibility is passed on to the patron. This means that, problems like shoplifting or vandalism will occur. Example, in Singapore's grocery stores like NTUC or Sheng Shiong, we often encounter problems like shoplifting. Some patrons just take and leave without paying. There arent any scanning system to detect theft as food products like fresh meat and unpacked fruits, cannot be "scanned". Therefore, not just taht self-service is prone to such issues, a lack of shopkeepers increase the chance of such problems. Another common example, is the vending machinese lying at public locations. At nights, there are people who meddle with the vending machinese for money, or even vandalise these public policies. As can be seen, self-service ain't totally full-proof against problems.
Lastly, we know that self-service derive from the advance in technology. Thus, the use of self technology is limited to the knowledge of technology. For example, some services like booking movie tickets online requires an internet access and a computer. So people, probably elderly, who does not how to use a computer, are not able to enjoy such facilities.
My stand:
Really very ironically, I thought that I would support the idea of self-servicing... But after typing out both sides of the argument, I come to the conclusion that I am not supportive of the idea. The problem is that, if the use of self-service is to increase the revenue and efficiency, shoplifting or vandalism already creates a downhill in the cost. Making machines require cost. And machines are not cheap. Imagine the impact of lost if the machinese are damaged, or goods that cost alot are stolen. Also, self service aims to increase efficiency. If patrons are not able to use the service, for example the 24/7 movie booking system, it is equivalent to not having the service. At the end of the day, the loss may be equivilant to not having usual customer services.
Also, the use of self-service can never be completely acceptable fully. For example, the use of ATM. There was once, i remembered I tried to withdraw money from the ATM machine. However, the machine has no more fifty dollar notes. You see, even a self-service machine requires banks to place money into the machine. It can never be acceptable as self-service. Also, in grocery stores, you will still need a few cashiers to make the payment, after fetching the goods. It is not fully practical to make the payment automatically as inflexible problems come in like, deciding not to buy the goods after scanning, or querying about the pricing etc. -- This can never be done completely with self-service. At least at today's context. I dare not comment on the future. =)
In conclusion, I am not really supportive of the idea of adapting the idea completely today, at least with the current state of technology. However, we have to be practical. It is a fact that the world is revolving around self-service. Everything is self service and automated.
Well, that is the end of my argument. Hope you guys enjoy reading it. =) Anybody who have any views on the issues I mentioned, feel free to let me know or tag on the tagboard. That should be the way of learning GP. =)
~Tick Meng =)
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Terence's
Hi guys, this is Terence. I will be talking about Euthanasia and my views on the topic itself for my review.
Euthanasia. Is it justified?
Euthanasia is the deliberate ending of a dependent human being's life. There have been many debates in the western countries these days, on whether it is morally correct to take a person's life in order to end his misery. Personally, I would feel that euthanasia, be it voluntary or non-voluntary, is definitely wrong. This is simply because life is something which every human on Earth must value and preserve.
Life is precious because opportunities abound and the numerous thrills and joys which we have yet to experience. It is an adventure in which every turn is a surprise. More importantly, life grants us time to savour the moments with our beloved family and friends. Due to the infinite reasons to live and it's value, it is never justified to end one's life. Voluntary euthanasia is no different from suicide. In my vantage point, people who intend to commit suicide are people who intend to escape the harsh reality of the world. Therefore, involuntary euthanasia is a sin which can never be forgiven.
One example of such atrocity:
During World War 2, the Nazis initiated a clandestine involuntary euthanasia program. The program massacred young children thought to be abnormal and were "life unworthy of life". Soon after, the age limit was increased to include even adults!
My views:
The children back then should have been given a choice whether to continue to live or not. We should not discriminate people just because they are different. Killing is already a grave sin, and yet they double that by taking away the lives of people who are already deprived of a normal life. Is there any grounds to consider what they have done right?
We humans have always been complacent of our superiority in knowledge. Therefore, we often think that we are always right about everything. However, time will eventually prove us wrong. We should not assume that we have got our facts right everytime. In some cases, our conjuncture about causes of diseases is still inaccurate even after much research over the years.
Lets take diabetes as an example:
In the past, doctors thought that the cure for diabetes was to increase the patient's sugar intake, when now we know that it will only exacerbate his condition. Now, isn't it curious that how many patients have been unintentionally killed by doctors this way?
Inspired by this example, it is possible that we have been ignorant about the all the facts of euthanasia all along. It is never certain to say that patients are doomed to die due to the rapid technological advances. Thus, we should never assume euthanasia be the only way to save a patient- from his/her excruciating pain. There could be hope some time after. I mean, who knows what miracles science can grant us right? Well, on second thought, the emotional stress of a dying patient could have been more torturous than the actual physical pain itself.
Therefore, as relatives/friends of a patient, we should not try to relieve him of his misery by executing the most extreme means of killing him. Instead, we should shower him with love, care, and emotional support as much as possible. Moreover, pain management technologies have been advancing rapidly over the years. Advanced pain relievers are always available nowadays in hospitals and clinics and we should definitely make full use of them. In fact, the mission of the medical profession itself is to protect life- not to end it.
If I am to be gravely sick some day in the future, I would definitely not go down without a fight. We as humans should try to preserve life and not give up even if the odds are against us.
-End-
This topic is inspired by a GP 'A' level Qns: "Euthanasia is murder. Discuss"
I have picked up some facts on Euthanasia from these sources:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia)(http://www.euthanasia.com/reasonsforeuthanasia.html)
(GP Essay Library by Redspot--Book) and have included them in my review. Feel free to take a look at these sources to know more about euthanasia.
I hope you have enjoyed reading my review. Thank you for your time!
-Terence
Euthanasia. Is it justified?
Euthanasia is the deliberate ending of a dependent human being's life. There have been many debates in the western countries these days, on whether it is morally correct to take a person's life in order to end his misery. Personally, I would feel that euthanasia, be it voluntary or non-voluntary, is definitely wrong. This is simply because life is something which every human on Earth must value and preserve.
Life is precious because opportunities abound and the numerous thrills and joys which we have yet to experience. It is an adventure in which every turn is a surprise. More importantly, life grants us time to savour the moments with our beloved family and friends. Due to the infinite reasons to live and it's value, it is never justified to end one's life. Voluntary euthanasia is no different from suicide. In my vantage point, people who intend to commit suicide are people who intend to escape the harsh reality of the world. Therefore, involuntary euthanasia is a sin which can never be forgiven.
One example of such atrocity:
During World War 2, the Nazis initiated a clandestine involuntary euthanasia program. The program massacred young children thought to be abnormal and were "life unworthy of life". Soon after, the age limit was increased to include even adults!
My views:
The children back then should have been given a choice whether to continue to live or not. We should not discriminate people just because they are different. Killing is already a grave sin, and yet they double that by taking away the lives of people who are already deprived of a normal life. Is there any grounds to consider what they have done right?
We humans have always been complacent of our superiority in knowledge. Therefore, we often think that we are always right about everything. However, time will eventually prove us wrong. We should not assume that we have got our facts right everytime. In some cases, our conjuncture about causes of diseases is still inaccurate even after much research over the years.
Lets take diabetes as an example:
In the past, doctors thought that the cure for diabetes was to increase the patient's sugar intake, when now we know that it will only exacerbate his condition. Now, isn't it curious that how many patients have been unintentionally killed by doctors this way?
Inspired by this example, it is possible that we have been ignorant about the all the facts of euthanasia all along. It is never certain to say that patients are doomed to die due to the rapid technological advances. Thus, we should never assume euthanasia be the only way to save a patient- from his/her excruciating pain. There could be hope some time after. I mean, who knows what miracles science can grant us right? Well, on second thought, the emotional stress of a dying patient could have been more torturous than the actual physical pain itself.
Therefore, as relatives/friends of a patient, we should not try to relieve him of his misery by executing the most extreme means of killing him. Instead, we should shower him with love, care, and emotional support as much as possible. Moreover, pain management technologies have been advancing rapidly over the years. Advanced pain relievers are always available nowadays in hospitals and clinics and we should definitely make full use of them. In fact, the mission of the medical profession itself is to protect life- not to end it.
If I am to be gravely sick some day in the future, I would definitely not go down without a fight. We as humans should try to preserve life and not give up even if the odds are against us.
-End-
This topic is inspired by a GP 'A' level Qns: "Euthanasia is murder. Discuss"
I have picked up some facts on Euthanasia from these sources:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia)(http://www.euthanasia.com/reasonsforeuthanasia.html)
(GP Essay Library by Redspot--Book) and have included them in my review. Feel free to take a look at these sources to know more about euthanasia.
I hope you have enjoyed reading my review. Thank you for your time!
-Terence
Friday, March 21, 2008
Welcome to our Gippy Blog!
Hic people!
Our team consists of Miz, Dennis, Terence and myself, Tick Meng. =)
Hope you guys can support our Gippy Blog... and I am sure you guys will improve your GP in time to come. =)
Our first blog post will be coming up soon... So look out for that. =)
Our team consists of Miz, Dennis, Terence and myself, Tick Meng. =)
Hope you guys can support our Gippy Blog... and I am sure you guys will improve your GP in time to come. =)
Our first blog post will be coming up soon... So look out for that. =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)