Single-sex schools vs Co-educational schools.

In Singapore, single-sex schools are associated with academic excellence, strength in ccas, and even prestige. Therefore, many parents are anxious for their children to fain admission into a single-sex schools. But we must wonder, can a single-sex school help students, or would a co-educational school be better. In fact, they are both good, but in different ways. Single-sex schools are able to cater to the different needs of the different genders, thus allowing a better and more fixed curriculum for each gender. Furthermore, students would be less distracted by students of the opposite sex in a single-sex school. This increased concentration could improve oneself academically.

On the other hand, some say that single-sex schools fail to prepare one for the real world. Due to a lack of coexisting between the two sexes, there is a disadvantage to the students of the single sex schools. This could lead to problems in romantic relationships and working with people of the other sex in the workplace. An example would be that many say that RI boys are generally considered as socially awkward, not to say some hwachongians are not. Studying at single-sex schools could thus hinder development socially.

Ultimately, single-sex schools could have advantages and disadvantages in different aspects when compared to co-educational schools. Moreover, there are many other factors that might affect quality of education, such as availability of resources. Furthermore, since single-sex schools in Singapore are independent, they could have a better curriculum. Although the single-sex-schools do have an impact, more research needs to be done before we can see its severity. Until then, gender policy should not be a primary factor for student to make their choices in schools.

Meritocracy- The way to go?

Meritocracy can find the most intelligent people. The “cream of the crops”, but, I feel that more than academic results are needed to enable the best to rise to the top. The brightest maybe, but the best should rise to the top with other factors such as leadership and moral qualities. Mr. Lee says, “I am a beneficiary of that meritocratic system.” Similarly, we are beneficiaries of this system, but we must think from another point of view; if we were to have this system, would that mean that the others who are not intelligent enough will be left behind? Will this mean they will not be successful? Let me answer that question. Yes. Lee Kuan Yew focuses on the positive impacts of the meritocracy system, to the people who would benefit from it. He himself benefits from it and thus would feel it is helpful. But he does not consider the negative impacts, on those that are not like him, those that are less intelligent. Mr. Lee speaks from the egoist point of view, so as to achieve the short term and long term goals for Singapore, thus, not looking and seeing that those who would suffer. Though one must admit that meritocracy would bring the top people out to lead the country, one must also admit that the smartest people would not necessarily be the best to drive the country. On the other hand, meritocracy can help those who are intelligent, and have the capabilities to help the country, but are in financial aid. This system would grant them scholarships to give them the education they would need, even without the social or money to do so.

Susan Lim case

When I heard of the Susan Lim case and heard about the astronomical price of 25 million, I was absolutely shocked. She has been with the patient, the Brunei princess for 6 years and in those 6 years charged around 14 million, already a huge amount. But even more shocking was that in the last 7 months, 25 million was asked to be paid to Dr. Lim. The price of around 25 million for just 7 months for treatment, it was just shocking. If I had tried to get cured at this rate, I would have been broke in just 2 days…. If this was the price of life, only rich people can be alive. That is just unfair to the poor. Everyone deserves to have their life saved, and it is more important than money.

Susan Lim unfairly charged her patient and claimed the prices to be the result of 3^rd party specialists that she had hired. But one specialist that only charged her 400 dollars she charged the patient 200 thousand. This is unfair. Susan Lim cared too much for money than to heal her patient. She left on July 16 as she felt that there was no chance to save the patient anymore. This shows how much she did not care for the patient’s well-being, but more for the money that she would have received from this operation. Instead of showing benevolence, she only cared for the money that she would receive, and not of the patient, which should always come first. She was money oriented instead of being oriented to help the patient. This is wrong and not how doctors should act. I think that benevolence should be before the fees she would receive.

Moreover, I feel that the government should fund these associations so that the doctors that work in these associations can manage to have enough money to have the right equipment and maybe have some money as income. This could be a training center for the new doctors to have experience and also a place where experienced mentors could guide these new doctors. This would kill two birds with one stone, teaching our next generation doctors and also to help the poor cancer victims.

Book Review- Catcher in the Rye

On the day that we were going through the R and R exercise, where the censored books were mentioned, The Catcher in the Rye was among them. I had recently borrowed the book, recommended by my sister. Curious to why it was banned, I began to read it. Slowly I understood the novel. It was about teenage rebellion! No wonder it was banned in some countries. It was about how a boy, Holden, flunked out of school, and had to deal with living in hotels and motels as he was afraid to go home. He goes out with girls, partied, got drunk and met up with old friends. In the end, he could not resist not seeing his little sister, his favourite person in the world, to tell her he was running away forever. His sister, also loving him very much, wants to go with him, but he does not allow her to go with him. Finally, the little sister manages to persuade Holden not to run away from home.

Holden’s attitude maintains from the beginning to the end of the novel showing no signs of maturation. He feels that he is smarter and more mature than adults, but in my opinion, he is much less mature. He is very emotional and sensitive, and is easily able to see through a person, and that person’s motives. Holden admires kids’ attributes that he struggles to find in adults, like innocence, kindness, spontaneity, and generosity. Overall, I really enjoy the book, though I admit it did spark some form of rebellion from me. It was interesting, and gave a new perspective of adults to me from a rebellious teenagers view.

Merchant of Venice- Character(Shylock)

The way that Shylock is crafted by Shakespeare is very complicated, probably the most complicated among the characters according to my opinion. We see him as the antagonist mostly, wanting to use justice in his favour to get revenge on someone. On the other hand we also get to see the world through Shakespeare's empathy of the Jewish society, of how alien it must have been to working in a Christian community. It also showed how he was abused and prejudiced against in the Christian community. Although we see that he is very bad to the Christian community himself, giving them stereotypes and having such a bad opinion of them, we must admit that the way the Christians treat him could have a part for that. On the other hand, we cannot blame the Christian community for their actions, Shylock's actions of money loaning and his thinking is completely different from the Christians, thus gaining the bullying.

In the end though, Shakespeare brought out sympathy for Shylock in the last few scenes. It showed his bitterness at the Christian community. How much he was bullied, and how much he had wanted revenge. He also showed his bitterness for losing his daughter, but more than that, his money and honour.

Overall, I disliked Shylock's character but at the same time, felt sympathy for his loss and his bitterness. He shows how much he has feelings and how he had been hurt by the Christians. He also highlights the anti-Semitism that was found in those times.

Merchant of Venice- Character(Portia)

Portia is a witty, strong-willed,resourceful, resolute and romantic. But she is also someone who has biasses for others that she does not like. This is most evidently shown in her suitors, where she finds faults in everyone, and even judges the Moroccan by his skin colour. She sees through and summarises all her suitors and from there she chooses which one she likes and which she doesnt. This shows how much she looks at first impressions, and how she draws conclusions from those first impressions.

Her most important words are from her speech on mercy. She shows how much she thinks, as a Christian, that mercy is important, and how it should season justice. On the contrary though, she did not give Shylock the mercy that she talked to him about. Instead, she shows him no mercy and the speech is a bait for him to be tricked. This shows that she might have meant what she talked about in mercy, but she is so prejudiced, that she dislikes Shylock as Bassanio dislikes him, thus not giving Shylock any mercy. Though, another way to look at it is that she cares for Bassanio and knows that Shylock would get in the way of his happiness.

Overall, I enjoyed her character. The irony of how she is a boy acting as a girl acting as a boy in the court is a great addition to the comedy that is MOV. Furthermore, her character is so intelligent and witty, and how she tricks other to get what she wants is also something that I found fascinating. Again, like all other characters, she might not be a perfect character, but someone with flaws, but her attitudes and actions are a good addition to the play which I enjoyed.

Merchant of Venice- Character(Bassanio)

Bassanio is a character who is a spendthrift and also cares a lot about worth. He married Portia partly out of her wealth, but at the same time, we must admit he does have feelings for her. He saw Portia as a prize, a magnificent prize he wanted to win. He also has a very strong friendship with Antonio, and knows to repay him due to Antonio's kindness towards him. He defends Antonio dearly when Shylock wants to kill Antonio, claiming he was more important than Portia.

But he is also seen as a brave and handsome person, somewhat the hero of the story, and is also seen very romantic as he tries to court Portia. He is also someone humble, modest and respectful. We see this in the casket scene, where he used his intelligence to pick the right casket. Instead of showing arrogance of winning Portia, he instead shows modesty.

Overall, he is someone that i enjoyed in the book. Although he does not have very good traits, he is someone who is very active and carefree, as opposed to Antonio. He is a risk taker, as he would with Antonio's money, which shows his adventurous attitude. He also cares too much about worth and wealth, thinking that he would only be good if he had wealth. He cares too much about worth and too little on what lies under. He feels that without money, he would not be important, thus he spends money so extravagantly. His bright attitude towards everything is very appealing to the viewer, and since MOV is a comedy, fits it very well.