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!

"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

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. =)