Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Yes, i agree to a small extent.
Censorship: A topic that has brought about several controvesarial issues in our society recently.
The topic of 'Censorship' is a subject that has been discussed many times, be it local context or even overseas. For example, even within our nation alone, many had commented about censorship in our local television programmes broadcast on Channel 8.
Some claimed that there has been too much censorship in the drama serials that it has ''eroded'' entertainment, that is suppose to incorporate in these shows. Many had also commented that there's too much censorship in the rating of the movie. For example, the movie 'The Da Vinci Code' was rated NC16. The reason for the move: It was to prevent the influence of religious belief.
However, others refute that censorship is there to protect young children (aged 6-10, in my opinion) from programmes that exhibit images of violence, killings and etc.
But my question is how much so could censorship change our perspective of violence and other 'censored' programmes. On a daily basis, we are exposed to various forms of influence be it directly or indirectly.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
the problem with modern media is that they do not have a sense of social justice. do you agree?
Yes, i agree to this question to a moderate extent.
In my opinion, modern media would go out, by hook or by crook, to increase readership and improve sales. This seems to be their ultimate goal now, instead of providing the basic needs of what media is about: reporting news and providing entertainment. This is a very sad issue on the whole, in my opinion, as a sense of social justice has been lost in this process to attain material goals, i.e to generate readership and sales.
One recent case can be the usage of the content in Singapore's well known blogger's blog, Xiaxue, to generate readership. Xiaxue had met with an unfortunate incident in M'sia and had written the process in her blog. Somehow, the Wanbao stumbled onto these piece of news from her blog and decided to publish it in the papers.
I am aghast and at the same time disgusted at what i have just
Yes, i agree to this question to a moderate extent.
In my opinion, modern media would go out, by hook or by crook, to increase readership and improve sales. This seems to be their ultimate goal now, instead of providing the basic needs of what media is about: reporting news and providing entertainment. This is a very sad issue on the whole, in my opinion, as a sense of social justice has been lost in this process to attain material goals, i.e to generate readership and sales.
One recent case can be the usage of the content in Singapore's well known blogger's blog, Xiaxue, to generate readership. Xiaxue had met with an unfortunate incident in M'sia and had written the process in her blog. Somehow, the Wanbao stumbled onto these piece of news from her blog and decided to publish it in the papers.
I am aghast and at the same time disgusted at what i have just
Sunday, May 6, 2007
1) Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
2) The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
Question 2:
I do not agree. Our media is not corrupting our society. Perhaps, it is indeed true that the media does affect our perception on some issues sometimes. However, i do not think that things would get out of hand and evolved to become a corruption to our society.
Corruption is defined as certain viewpoints being sometimes accused deviated from some older correct view. (from Wikipedia) Somehow, my question is whether would it be too harsh to say that our society is corrupted by media, propaganding and changing people's mindsets in some way or another.
Media has a huge impact in our lives as they can influence people with the type or genre of news which they report. In a nutshell, media can either make or break a person.
2) The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
Question 2:
I do not agree. Our media is not corrupting our society. Perhaps, it is indeed true that the media does affect our perception on some issues sometimes. However, i do not think that things would get out of hand and evolved to become a corruption to our society.
Corruption is defined as certain viewpoints being sometimes accused deviated from some older correct view. (from Wikipedia) Somehow, my question is whether would it be too harsh to say that our society is corrupted by media, propaganding and changing people's mindsets in some way or another.
Media has a huge impact in our lives as they can influence people with the type or genre of news which they report. In a nutshell, media can either make or break a person.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Article for the week:
Gun control isn't the answer
Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.
By James Q. Wilson, JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including
"Thinking About Crime."
April 20, 2007
THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes. This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully. Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.
First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there. If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun.
This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free. There are federally required background checks on purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and juveniles may not buy them at all. But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow. It's also important to note that guns play an important role in selfdefense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.
There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely. AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply. Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe.
In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris. The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities. It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.
Comment on Above Article:
It is indeed heart-wrenching to know that innocent people had died in the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Somehow, I disagree with what the author has to comment on the lesser stringent restrictions on arms control in the USA. The author was saying that gun control would have its minimum effect in these situations as he claimed that researches have shown that Americans tend to be more violent than the English. His assumption was that guns would still be brought in despite stringent restrictions and attempts for gun control would be futile.
Instead, I feel that something has to be done to nip this problem in the bud. Something must be done to curb this problem. Gun control would not exactly be the solution to this problem but i am sure that it would definitely help improve situations. i.e hopefully, there will be a decrease in such cases.
An estimated number of 33 precious lives were lost in this tragedy
Gun control isn't the answer
Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.
By James Q. Wilson, JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including
"Thinking About Crime."
April 20, 2007
THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes. This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully. Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.
First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there. If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun.
This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free. There are federally required background checks on purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and juveniles may not buy them at all. But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow. It's also important to note that guns play an important role in selfdefense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.
There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely. AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply. Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe.
In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris. The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities. It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.
Comment on Above Article:
It is indeed heart-wrenching to know that innocent people had died in the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Somehow, I disagree with what the author has to comment on the lesser stringent restrictions on arms control in the USA. The author was saying that gun control would have its minimum effect in these situations as he claimed that researches have shown that Americans tend to be more violent than the English. His assumption was that guns would still be brought in despite stringent restrictions and attempts for gun control would be futile.
Instead, I feel that something has to be done to nip this problem in the bud. Something must be done to curb this problem. Gun control would not exactly be the solution to this problem but i am sure that it would definitely help improve situations. i.e hopefully, there will be a decrease in such cases.
An estimated number of 33 precious lives were lost in this tragedy
Friday, April 13, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Yes, I do agree with this statement to a small extent.
Media has increasingly become part and parcel of our lives. In short, the impact of media in our lives today has become tremendously huge. Somehow, the information provided by media could perhaps be less accurate compared to obtaining direct first hand information. This could have been due to various reasons. However, I will briefly elaborate on one of the more significant reason.
One such reason is to generate readership. (for internet servers/magazines/newspapers perhaps?)
In my opinion, to generate readership does not equate to having the right to make news which information may or may not be accurate at times.
Article 1: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/268154/1/.html
An extract of the article can be shown below
For Bryan and Zach, disbelief at this turn of events turned to horror, when a wire report afterward painted the Singapore team’s reaction as one of happiness.
According to reports by Associated Press, “members of Singapore’s relay team pointed at the ‘DSQ’ (disqualified) listed next to the United States on a television monitor and smiled”. The widely-circulated report ran in publications across the globe, including Sports Illustrated magazine, Californian newspaper Whittier Daily News and The Statesman in India. On Monday, the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) came out strongly to refute the report.
Said SSA vice-president Oon Jin Gee: “We have zero tolerance for mistakes in relays. Why should the boys be smiling when they understand the severity of those mistakes?
It puzzled me to know how a smile could brought about so much controversial issues. A food for thought: Was it solely just a concidental issue that was blow up unintentionally somehow? Or was it due to some other reasons? Hopefully, it is the former.
There are also other issues that paparazzi may have distorted and exaggerated the facts somehow. One such issue could be the relationship between Prince William and his girlfriend.
Article 2: About Prince William
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/britain.william.reut/index.html?eref=edition_europe
This can greatly show how media has a big impact on the person reported. Media, in my opinion, can either make you or destroy you. One's reputation is greatly at staked as shown due to this invincible power which can have disastorous effect on one when inaccurate information is being circluated around.
Article 3: 11 Convent Schools threatened to sue SPH
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=211156 (1st Post)
This was a huge issue which cause an uproar from parents of students studying in the 11 Convent Schools in Singapore. There were numerous complains and threats to sue the editor who published the report stating that: (see extract below)
"'IJ girls' is a generalisation for girls who study in CHIJ schools and who like to hem their school uniforms real short, wear their belts real low on their hips, and are allegedly easy when it comes to the opposite sex," a paragraph read.
A cartoon above the paragraph also showed a girl in blue lighting up a cigarette
This report generalises the girls in these convent schools too much. The introduction of the A-Z report shown in the Sunday's Time was indeed interesting but it seemed to be exaggerating at the section under "I" by stating such claims on these students. Must media be done at the expense of innocent people?
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Yes, I do agree with this statement to a small extent.
Media has increasingly become part and parcel of our lives. In short, the impact of media in our lives today has become tremendously huge. Somehow, the information provided by media could perhaps be less accurate compared to obtaining direct first hand information. This could have been due to various reasons. However, I will briefly elaborate on one of the more significant reason.
One such reason is to generate readership. (for internet servers/magazines/newspapers perhaps?)
In my opinion, to generate readership does not equate to having the right to make news which information may or may not be accurate at times.
Article 1: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/268154/1/.html
An extract of the article can be shown below
For Bryan and Zach, disbelief at this turn of events turned to horror, when a wire report afterward painted the Singapore team’s reaction as one of happiness.
According to reports by Associated Press, “members of Singapore’s relay team pointed at the ‘DSQ’ (disqualified) listed next to the United States on a television monitor and smiled”. The widely-circulated report ran in publications across the globe, including Sports Illustrated magazine, Californian newspaper Whittier Daily News and The Statesman in India. On Monday, the Singapore Swimming Association (SSA) came out strongly to refute the report.
Said SSA vice-president Oon Jin Gee: “We have zero tolerance for mistakes in relays. Why should the boys be smiling when they understand the severity of those mistakes?
It puzzled me to know how a smile could brought about so much controversial issues. A food for thought: Was it solely just a concidental issue that was blow up unintentionally somehow? Or was it due to some other reasons? Hopefully, it is the former.
There are also other issues that paparazzi may have distorted and exaggerated the facts somehow. One such issue could be the relationship between Prince William and his girlfriend.
Article 2: About Prince William
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/britain.william.reut/index.html?eref=edition_europe
This can greatly show how media has a big impact on the person reported. Media, in my opinion, can either make you or destroy you. One's reputation is greatly at staked as shown due to this invincible power which can have disastorous effect on one when inaccurate information is being circluated around.
Article 3: 11 Convent Schools threatened to sue SPH
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=211156 (1st Post)
This was a huge issue which cause an uproar from parents of students studying in the 11 Convent Schools in Singapore. There were numerous complains and threats to sue the editor who published the report stating that: (see extract below)
"'IJ girls' is a generalisation for girls who study in CHIJ schools and who like to hem their school uniforms real short, wear their belts real low on their hips, and are allegedly easy when it comes to the opposite sex," a paragraph read.
A cartoon above the paragraph also showed a girl in blue lighting up a cigarette
This report generalises the girls in these convent schools too much. The introduction of the A-Z report shown in the Sunday's Time was indeed interesting but it seemed to be exaggerating at the section under "I" by stating such claims on these students. Must media be done at the expense of innocent people?
In a nutshell, I believe that things will turn for the better if media (on the whole) would be more responsible in the publishing of their reports. It ultimately boils down to one's reputation and so, mass media should think twice before making such dramatic news just for the sake of generating readership or even, bluntly to put, mainly for the sake of reporting news.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
1. “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
OR
2. “The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Question 2 will be attempted:
“The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Yes, i would agree with this statement made.
Youtube is a video uploading website that showcases videos put up by people around the world. With technological advances nowadays, I believe that quite a number of Singaporean families do own computers and even internet access.
As a result of this easy access to the internet, Youtube has inevitably disintegrate into our lives in someway or another recently, providing us with online entertainment. It has now act as a medium where entertainment can be easily obtained Building up one's social circle is also another advantage of the existence of Youtube as it allows people with similar interests to share their opinions with one another.
Besides, the existence of Youtube can also allow stimulate people to start "producing entertainment" by shooting videos and uploading them to the server. That would allow one to exercise their creative juices and at the same time, provided entertainment to others.
Recent statistics also show that Youtube has also acted as a mode of advertisements for certain products such as drama serials VCDs and DVDs. People who have frequent the website might start to be interested in this shows and would most probably buy them if they really do like it a lot.
Hence, the above points would clearly showcase how Youtube has somehow integrate into us, becoming part and parcel of our lives.
Somehow, the BIG questions remain: Who should control this website and who are the allowed audience to access to this?
The recent controversial issue that involved the flaming of the Thai King has sparked over debates for the existence of Youtube in the Thailand's internet servers. That bring us down to thinking whether is there a necessity to restrict the audience as well as well those uploading viedos. Perhaps, there must be people to manage and to give the green light to videos uploaded.
Ultimately, i believe that one must exercise discrency to uploading information onto the internet. One must think twice about his actions and bear the consequences for what has evolved due to his immature actions.
In a nutshell, Youtube can help and affect man both postively and negatively. The crucial factor that one must bear in mind is the information uploaded onto the internet. Like drugs, it may have positive effects if taken in prescribed amounts or else, the consequences may be disasterous when abused.
OR
2. “The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Question 2 will be attempted:
“The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Yes, i would agree with this statement made.
Youtube is a video uploading website that showcases videos put up by people around the world. With technological advances nowadays, I believe that quite a number of Singaporean families do own computers and even internet access.
As a result of this easy access to the internet, Youtube has inevitably disintegrate into our lives in someway or another recently, providing us with online entertainment. It has now act as a medium where entertainment can be easily obtained Building up one's social circle is also another advantage of the existence of Youtube as it allows people with similar interests to share their opinions with one another.
Besides, the existence of Youtube can also allow stimulate people to start "producing entertainment" by shooting videos and uploading them to the server. That would allow one to exercise their creative juices and at the same time, provided entertainment to others.
Recent statistics also show that Youtube has also acted as a mode of advertisements for certain products such as drama serials VCDs and DVDs. People who have frequent the website might start to be interested in this shows and would most probably buy them if they really do like it a lot.
Hence, the above points would clearly showcase how Youtube has somehow integrate into us, becoming part and parcel of our lives.
Somehow, the BIG questions remain: Who should control this website and who are the allowed audience to access to this?
The recent controversial issue that involved the flaming of the Thai King has sparked over debates for the existence of Youtube in the Thailand's internet servers. That bring us down to thinking whether is there a necessity to restrict the audience as well as well those uploading viedos. Perhaps, there must be people to manage and to give the green light to videos uploaded.
Ultimately, i believe that one must exercise discrency to uploading information onto the internet. One must think twice about his actions and bear the consequences for what has evolved due to his immature actions.
In a nutshell, Youtube can help and affect man both postively and negatively. The crucial factor that one must bear in mind is the information uploaded onto the internet. Like drugs, it may have positive effects if taken in prescribed amounts or else, the consequences may be disasterous when abused.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
‘The teenage years are the best years of one’s life.’ Would you agree with this view?
Yes, i would agree with this to a moderate extent. However, in my opinion, teenage years are one of the best years but not the most. As to sum it all, youth should be considered as the best years in one's life.
In my opinion, teenage years are one of the more smooth-sailing years in one's life. To sum it all, it is the time which majority of teenagers do not have to worry about putting bread onto the table. It is also the time which teenagers can let down their hair and enjoy themselves throughly. It is at this period of time which teenagers can afford to take risks and try various activities to broaden their perspective. They too have less worries compared to the working adults. In a nut shell, the 'role' of majority of singapore teenagers is basically to study, to grow and to enjoy.
As a teenager myself, I find myself quite fortunate as I can get to participate in various sports and aesthetic programmes organised either in school or outside school. Time could be spend on going out to catch a movie or even enjoy myself with friends during the holidays besides school based activities. It is the time which we can expand our social circle and meet more people and that might be what the adults are missing out due to their busy work schedule. I guess that socialising and making more friends could most probably be done during our teenage years due to the more spare time which we have.
In addition, teenage years are the time which allow teenagers to acquire different experiences and to grow in the process. It is the time when teenagers can explore into different fields and can even afford to make mistakes. These mistakes can then allow them to sprout and become a better person in the future.
However, I do not mean that the mistakes, that teenagers make, can be justified. Instead, I feel that they can make use of these time -during this teenage years-to repent and to become a better person next time. And ultimately, to become a good citizen of Singapore in the future.
Though some may beg to differ but indeed, inevitably, the adults have much more to worry compared to us, teenagers. The adults have a lot on hand to fret about be it work, money and even their future. Compared to future working adults, I must say that we, teenagers, are so much more fortunate in comparison to people living in the past. Hence, in a way or so, teenage years are one of the best time in one's life.
Yes, i would agree with this to a moderate extent. However, in my opinion, teenage years are one of the best years but not the most. As to sum it all, youth should be considered as the best years in one's life.
In my opinion, teenage years are one of the more smooth-sailing years in one's life. To sum it all, it is the time which majority of teenagers do not have to worry about putting bread onto the table. It is also the time which teenagers can let down their hair and enjoy themselves throughly. It is at this period of time which teenagers can afford to take risks and try various activities to broaden their perspective. They too have less worries compared to the working adults. In a nut shell, the 'role' of majority of singapore teenagers is basically to study, to grow and to enjoy.
As a teenager myself, I find myself quite fortunate as I can get to participate in various sports and aesthetic programmes organised either in school or outside school. Time could be spend on going out to catch a movie or even enjoy myself with friends during the holidays besides school based activities. It is the time which we can expand our social circle and meet more people and that might be what the adults are missing out due to their busy work schedule. I guess that socialising and making more friends could most probably be done during our teenage years due to the more spare time which we have.
In addition, teenage years are the time which allow teenagers to acquire different experiences and to grow in the process. It is the time when teenagers can explore into different fields and can even afford to make mistakes. These mistakes can then allow them to sprout and become a better person in the future.
However, I do not mean that the mistakes, that teenagers make, can be justified. Instead, I feel that they can make use of these time -during this teenage years-to repent and to become a better person next time. And ultimately, to become a good citizen of Singapore in the future.
Though some may beg to differ but indeed, inevitably, the adults have much more to worry compared to us, teenagers. The adults have a lot on hand to fret about be it work, money and even their future. Compared to future working adults, I must say that we, teenagers, are so much more fortunate in comparison to people living in the past. Hence, in a way or so, teenage years are one of the best time in one's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)