H1N1

OPEN ON A black screen.

NARRATOR
It is the year 2009.

CUT TO-

METROPARK HOTEL, WANCHAI, HONG KONG.
People, about forty to fifty of them, men, women, and children, standing at the glass doors of the hotel, staring out. They have been quarantined in the hotel as a person who had stayed there has tested positive for H1N1.

NARRATOR
Something is coming.

CUT TO-

ALOHA LOYANG RESORT, SINGAPORE.
The former resort has been turned into a quarantine zone for suspected H1N1 cases coming in from overseas. Two medics are helping a sickly patient onto a stretcher into an emergency ambulance. The medics is dressed in biosuits, and seem rather out-of-place in the environment.

NARRATOR
An invisible threat.

CUT TO-

CITY CENTRE, MEXICO.
The city centre is deserted, due to the shutting down of non-essential services to halt the progress of the flu. The streets are quiet. The sidewalks are devoid of people. The buildings have all their lights off. Nothing moves or makes a sound.

NARRATOR
A new strain has arisen.

CUT TO-

A SCIENCE LAB.
The place is sterile, and gives out the appearance of being disinfected. Test tubes and other complicated apparatus line the benches along the walls. A lone scientist examines the readout from a computer.

SCIENTIST
(increasingly agitated)
My word... it's evolving!

CUT TO-

A black screen, and sudden silence. A caption is displayed on the screen.

CAPTION
H1N1

WINTER 2009

Ok, so I exaggerated (quite) a bit. For one, the people in the Metropark Hotel were reportedly not that unhappy, though some of them did feel somewhat inconvenienced. Oh, and the part about the biosuits may not be entirely true. But you get my point.

Ever since the start of the H1N1 pandemic, countries have taken many measures, sometimes seeming somewhat extreme, in an attempt to counteract the spread of the virus.

But is it really worthit? Are we overreacting? Are the measures put in place too cruel?

Perhaps I am merely the average 'kiasee' Singaporean, but I feel that the measures are justifiable. Just take the enforced quarantine at the Aloha Loyang resort for example. Ok, sure, your vacation's just been ruined because you're not allowed to go anywhere, but hey, if you were actually sick, down with a fever, even if it was not the H1N1 virus, would your holiday still not be ruined anyway? It is hardly enjoyable to fall ill during an overseas trip. I would even feel safer, in some sense; after all, being in Aloha Loyang means that I would be under constant supervision, and if I actually fell ill with anything serious, I would be able to recieve medical attention rather promptly, and this could avoid any problems and complications.

As for most of Mexico shutting down for five whole days, I feel that this is somewhat justified, since, after all, their death toll was, for mysterious reasons, significantly higher than anywhere else, and hence was considered more of a threat.

In terms of death tolls and death rates, however, the H1N1 is not exactly the most lethal virus ever, but far from it. With a death rate that is even lower than that of the normal seasonal flu, it really hardly seems to be much of a threat.

At least for now.

Of course, it would be really really nice to be able to just say "hey look, its not going to hurt us, its rather pathetic, so lets declare off our state of emergency".

Even I would like to do that too, but in my opinion, I would say wait a while longer. There is always the possibility that a recurrent pandemic might occur. Recently, the Singapore Government decided to loosen up its laws on H1N1. In my opinion, I feel that this is a not a bad idea, as at this stage, with easily over a thousand people already infected, there is really no running from the pandemic; trying to stop it now would be a waste of time and effort (and money) especially since it does not seem to be too severe. However, everyone is still on alert, in case anything worse happens.

As for Metropark Hotel, I would say that it is justified, but besides being a response to the situation, it is also partly an emotional (if that is the right term) response, since Hong Kong was rather badly hit by the SARS pandemic. However, in most cases, I would think that overreaction is better than underreaction; overreaction usually inconveniences while underreaction can easily kill.

In Mexico's case, from our current standpoint, I would say it is somewhat justifiable, but it is also partially an overreaction; but this was very early on in the crisis, I do not think that they should be criticised.

I don't know about you, but, to quote a time-tested maxim, I would rather be safe than to be sorry (and potentially dead).

H1N1- Coming to a person near you, by the Winter 2009 flu season.

GEP

Having been a happy participant of the Gifted Education Programme from the years 2004 to 2006, I distinctly remember the day, not long after my PSLE (if I remember right), when it was announced in the newspapers that the GE programme was to be phased out in secondary schools. I also remember that the article termed the GEP as a sacred cow, and its title was something along the lines of "Slaughtering the Sacred Cow". But really, I do not think that the GEP deserves such harsh criticism.

The mission of the GEP is to "provide leadership in the education of the intellectually gifted". I would think that it is not fair to say that the GEP has done fairly well in this respect, by providing students with various opportunities for continuous development, such as projects and the like. They have done well in providing the necessary tools for improvement.

Do note that I have used the word "providing". Whether or not the student takes advantage of the gifts bestowed upon them is entirely up to the student himself or herself. The teacher may prod, guide and attempt to enlighten, but in the end it is really the student that is making the decisions. If a student is on the wrong path and stubbornly refuses to change, no matter how amazing the educational facilities provided are, nothing much can rescue the student from the dire situation brought onto himself or herself short of divine intervention. Just like how the distribution of data should not be judged by its outliers, likewise simply because not everyone in the GEP does well means that it is a failure; it would take much more than that to prove such a strong assertion.

Not everyone in the GEP is able to succeed, but neither is the GEP out to create erudite polymaths; everyone has their own flaws and foibles, so how is it even reasonable?

With this rather dreadful misconception that GEP students ought to be perfect, comes the impression that GEP students are snobby, aloof, nerds who do nothing else but nerd about, elites who couldn't give a damn about everyone else. This is merely another instance of the GEP being victim to a blanket assertion, just like how the mainstream pupils are victims to the assertion of them being uncouth and disadvantaged intellectually when compared to the GEP.

It would be nice to say that since both assertions are sweeping generalisations and hence must be totally false. Alas, the irony is that that would be a generalisation in itself.

Alexander Dumas once quipped "All generalizations are dangerous, including this one". Yes, while some GEP and non-GEP students may fit their rather unappealing stereotypes, it would be a grave error to extend this impression to everyone else. It would be unfair to judge all the students in the programme based just on the few which leave bad impressions.

In short, lets all forget all of these unfair accusations and lets all be nicer to each other, ok? :)

The Human Organ Transplant Act

Not very long ago, the government legalized organ donation. In my opinion, the terms of the Human Organ Transplant Act are rather reasonable, although it does have some fairly controversial aspects.
The Human Organ Transplant Act (commonly known as HOTA) is essentially an opt-out scheme which allows for various organs (the heart, liver, kidneys, and cornea) to be recovered and stored when the person in the scheme dies. It also covers other things like organ donation from living donors.
In my opinion, this part of HOTA is reasonable, and is generally a good idea. With such a scheme, this would supply more organs to needy donors; there is currently a shortage of organs needed for organ transplants. The purpose of making the scheme is an opt-out scheme is two-fold: firstly, it would subtly encourage people to donate their organs, simply because remaining opted-in is much more convinient that having to opt oneself out. Furthermore, this settles most problems with people who are not in favour of organ donation, or their religion prohibits them from doing so, since they can opt out if they want to.
What is somewhat problematic about HOTA is the following section:
"Certain contracts, etc., to be void
14. —(1) Subject to this section, a contract or arrangement under which a person agrees, for valuable consideration, whether given or to be given to himself or to another person, to the sale or supply of any organ or blood from his body or from the body of another person, whether before or after his death or the death of the other person, as the case may be, shall be void.
(2) A person who enters into a contract or arrangement of the kind referred to in subsection (1) and to which that subsection applies shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to or in relation to —
(a) a contract or arrangement providing only for the reimbursement of any expenses necessarily incurred by a person in relation to the removal of any organ or blood in accordance with the provisions of any other written law; and
(b) any scheme introduced or approved by the Government granting medical benefits or privileges to any organ or blood donor and any member of the donor’s family or any person nominated by the donor." (from the Statutes of Singapore Online, Chapter 131A)
This essentially means that donors are to recieve an agreed amount of money from the organ recipient. This has been often criticised as being trading in organs, which has several problems, such as rich people exploiting the less well-to-do by paying them very little in exchange for organs. Furthermore, people who have the money for organ transplants now would be able to "cut the queue" since they are able to pay for such transplants.
Essentially, what the government has to do is to prevent abuse of the system, which one of the challenges that the government faces.

Today's Library, Tomorrow's Googlary

Reading has always been a pastime of mine. With computer heralding the start of the Internet age, there has been a rather obvious shift from the text and typewriters of traditional media to the bits and bytes of the digital era. With this comes the possible concern that books, and other similar forms of media may become obsolete, and be considered anachronisms in the coming future. However, just stop and think for a bit. Is it really that much of a problem?

After all, a book is still a book irregardless of whether it has been digitised or not.

In my opinion, shifting from print to digital has both pros and cons.

With the Internet, people are able to learn new things that they might never have ever dreamt of if it had not existed. The Internet connects everyone. (Who has access to it, of course.) The Internet has the ability to spread ideas (and books, which are ideas in essence), like wildfire, which is clearly apparent in the emergence of a whole new genre of marketing: viral marketing. Viral marketing relies on making a small group of people extremely interested in the product to be marketed, and for them to be interested enough to pass this information on to even more potential customers, and so on and so forth, essentially making your customers double up as advertising agents, and of course, all of this being done while incurring minimal costs, or even none at all. This is only possible with the interconnectivity that the Internet brings to us all. With the Internet, all information, not exclusively just books, may be passed on with extreme ease and convenience.

Of course, the Internet is not a perfect solution. There is just some strange, elusive, romantic aspect about having printed material in one's hands. It may not be an antique; after all, most books are far from it, but there is still something rather thrilling to be able to touch the plot of a good story, to be able to feel all of its twists and turns. Perhaps it is the smell of paper. I have seen car air fresheners of the "New Car Scent" variety; perhaps "New Book Scent" or "Library Air-con Fragrance" might catch on as well.

Ok. Back to the point.

There is something about a book that wants to makes me keep it in as pristine a condition as possible even though it is impossible; the number of dog-ears is a measure of the love a book recieves. You just can't have your book and read it.

However, this curious facet of printed material is lost during digitising. I hardly feel the same way about e-books; they just seem so dispensible; not something to be truly loved, but instead, merely for the sake of enlightenment. Perhaps this is due to the fact that ebooks are so easily generated; that many copies can be made with relative ease, that it is no longer as 'special' as printed material, which requires more effort because of things like printing and distribution. There is nothing romantic about a computer; all that is there to be admired is its efficiency and convenience.

In my opinion, it really boils down to what the reader wants. If you are a pragmatic person, perhaps e-books are for you, save the trees and all. For me, though, I would choose a good, tangible, wholesome book over an electronic one any day.

Draft Dodging and My Take on NS

World-famous pianist + NS = S$3000 dollar fine + lots of angry people.

This was rather clearly demonstrated in the rather well-publicised Melvyn Tan draft dodging case.

Melvyn Tan, a Singapore-born pianist-turned British Citizen, skipped National Service to study music overseas. In exchange, he was fined S$3000 by the Singapore government. Of course, it caused public outcry. After all, what is a measly three grand to someone who would probably make hundreds and hundreds of them a year?

People also complained that the government was equating two years of, um, utter unenjoyableness to three thousand dollars. I sympathise with them. Three thousand dollars is a rather pathetic amount of money for the sheer effort invested in those two years.

However, before we start criticising, do take into consideration that the Singapore Government is truly at a dilemma here.

While I hardly doubt Singapore's need for an army, because of reasons such as etc. etc. etc. which have been drilled into the brains of every Singaporean, and have resorted to conscription because of etc. etc. etc., I do not think that having an army comprised of undermotivated (and quite possibly government-hating) people are odds in Singapore's favour. Even granted that the government-hating group are a small minority, because of the fact that the Singapore Government has done many things including [insert numerous examples here] for the benefit of Singaporeans, this still leaves a rather large 'undermotivated' fraction of people.

After all, how many would want to subject themselves to such training after living in relative comfort for a whole seventeen years? I would hazard a guess at 'not many'.

Conscription would provide Singapore with an army, albeit an unhappy one, and this general unhappiness is what leads draft dodgers to, um, dodge drafts.

Returning back to Melvyn Tan, we see the blatantly obvious way to satisfy the unhappy masses, and to reduce incidences of draft dodging, i.e. by making the fines higher. Ideally, by raising penalties, this would deter people from defecting because of the costs involved, and that the higher penalties would convince citizens to take National Service more seriously, and recognize that it is crucial to
Singapore's survival. Unfortunately, it could quite possibly stir up even more resentment towards the government, meaning that although draft dodging cases are likely to drop, even more people in the army would be unsatisfied, as NS would be seen as more of a obligation forced on the citizen.

What I am trying to say here is that dodging is not the main problem. Draft dodging problems may be alleviated by increasing fines, but this does not mean that the situation is any better, and in fact could possibly be worse than before. What that government needs to do is to impress a good image on Singapore's youth of National Service.

Get 'em while they're hot. Or in this case 'young' or 'impressionable' would be more appropriate.

In this regard, probably the most successful thing that has been done so far is the National Cadets Corps. While I myself am hardly a fan of uniform groups, as I dislike their regimentation, I have to admit it appears to be pretty successful. I have seen students who, prior to joining the NCC, had not displayed much interest in the army, but now are attempting to spin whatever object they have on hand like a rifle. I even know of one person who attempted it with his handphone, which ended up in the ceiling fan, and yes, he still has not stopped even after that event. (Surprisingly, his handphone was still functional after the incident.)

Apart from that what else can be done?

Advertisements, of course. And films and books and various other media types.

By advertisements, of course, I do not mean the strange daydream world of the random office worker in his cubicle, who is suddenly awoken by a phonecall.

What is needed is something which promotes the army as something that is ultimately good for everyone involved.

I mean, seriously, flying potted plant dive bombers? Printer cannons? Guided water dispenser missiles? Creative at best.

I hardly think anyone is going to buy into that.

The government could also move beyond advertising, into things like films. Take the Army Daze film for example. I am not saying that it is something that actually intentionally promotes National Service; it is a satire, of course. But its has several points worth noting, like the emphasis placed on camaraderie and the like, while at the same time, admitting to the flaws of NS, albeit in a humorous manner. This would help to lighten the picture of NS and make it more appealing. Not admitting to its various faults would simply convey the message that the government is unware of the citizens' opinions.

Finally, I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting total indoctrination. I just think that National Service should be made to come across as more appealing to the average citizen.

My bonsais are getting restless; I have to go check on them before they try to attack someone.

Advertisments

Advertisements are everywhere nowadays. You can hardly watch a show on the television without coming across at least five or more of them, you can hardly go anywhere without seeing a couple of billboards along the roadside. Advertisements promoting company X's products because their product is extremely useful for doing task Y, and is more effective than a typical market brand Z by a factor of k times. Advertisements which depict a group of models caressing a car, a rather blatant way of making it look more appealing that it really is. In such an competitive market, advertisements play a crucial role in forming the success of a product. The question is: to what extent would a company bend the truth to ensure success of their product? Would they even break it?
The answer, I feel, to this, would be that companies, the legally operating ones at least, never tell lies. In fact, it is illegal to produce false advertising (false in the sense of marketing a false trade description, e.g. a product has to meet certain conditions before it can be called 'cake'; you can't just take a jar of peanut butter and write 'Cake' all over it and then try to sell it as such). They do, however, manipulate it in rather cunning ways.
Suppose you were the manager of a cigarette company? What would you do? Tell consumers that the product may cause lung cancer, heart attacks, death? That would be ridiculous. One possible method of advertising cigarettes would be to associate cigarrettes with celebrities, famous icons, which can influence people into thinking that smoking is something desirable, to encourage the sales of cigarettes (Advertising of cigarettes in Singapore is strictly controlled, though). It can be very hard to differenciate what is best and what is not when everything seems to be in some sort of grey area.
How do they get into those grey areas then? The key to all of it is spin. As long as you apply enough of it, anything can seem believable. It doesn't matter if your argument doesn't convince your opponents, as long as it convinces your customers. As Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking eloquently puts it, “they're the ones I'm after”. As long as the product appeals to the customers, it does not really matter what the critics say.
Companies want the viewers of their advertisements to remember them. Advertisments need to have something new, unique, or special to say about their products, something to catch the viewer's eye, or it would be just be “another” product. Recall the Gatsby advertisements? Of course you do. Despite making little sense as far as I can tell, we still remember the brand name because of its rather quirky, if I may put it as such, advertisements. Companies have to find some way to make its product sound and look nice, and appear to have something new to sell to customers. If all fails, throw in some half-dressed models, cross your fingers, and hope it all turns out well.
Despite all their obvious biases towards the product being marketed, advertisments still remain as one of the major sources of information when we are finding out about new products. All I can say is, go and find out for yourself.

Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

Darwin. Feynman. Einstein. Newton.

All four of them were revolutionaries in science, and have become immoralized in history ever since. Science has been an important, and one of the main fields of research, and has been paid much attention. Knowledge is not the only thing that the study of science has produced. The vaccine, the Internet, the lightbulb, are all innovations which depend highly on modern science. However, science does not only produce innovations which make our lives better. The atom bomb and biological weapons of mass destruction have certainly done so, for one. This leads to an interesting question. Is modern science truly a marvel, or does it do far more harm than it does good?

Firstly, I feel that the benefits of modern science more than outweigh its costs. Science has provided us with a much more comfortable lifestyle, with air-conditioning, lights, a continual water supply, so on and so forth. Science has also saved many lives, one of the most prominent examples being in the field of medicine, namely, the vaccine, which is an ingenious method of immunization against a pathogen, by first innoculating the patient with possibly a weakened form of the pathogen, with its greatest success would probably be the complete eradication of smallpox. People may argue that science has produced weapons of mass destruction, such as the atom bomb, which can kill a million people in a single instant. Yes, I concede that that is certainly true; however, people do change. After the experiences in the Cold War, and World War II, most nations have banned nuclear fission technology, and weapons of mass destruction. Of course, not all nations agree to this; and this is one of the downsides of science. In the end, however, I feel that the overall benefits still outweigh the costs of science, as it helps so many more people, and raises their quality of life, than it harms.

However, science does interefere with ethics quite a lot, and this an become a major problem, especially in the area of stem cell research. Stem cell research is an upcoming field of research which has been hailed as being an extremely effective type of regenerative medication, and at the same time, smitten by critics for violating human rights. Typically, stem cell research usually involves either the usage of embryonic stem cells extracted from human embryos, or the usage of adult stem cells. However, using embryonic stem cells kills the embryo. The question now is: are embryos considered human beings? If so, using embryonic stem cells would be equivalent to murder, the violation of a person's right to life. If not, the usage of such cells is justified. This issue is hard to settle and is highly debatable. Fortunately, using stem cells from adult, which leaves the adult healthy, seems to be a possible way out, but this still does emphasize the fact that some areas of science can fall into moral grey areas, which can lead to many ethical problems.

The most important thing is that modern science, I feel, cannot be said to be either 'good', or 'bad', like an atom bomb cannot be said to be 'good' or 'bad'. Science (and atom bombs) is merely a tool, to be utilised by humans. It therefore boils down to whether people can actually be trusted with science. Humans, by nature, are selfish, and are bound to try to take advantage of science, possibly to inflict harm on others for one's personal gain. The usage of science only for good depends on whether we, as humans, are able to restrict our selfish impulses. This is unlikely to be achievable, because as long as science and technology remains available to everyone, there are likely to be some people who use science for the wrong purposes. Science is a menace, but only in the wrong hands.

Hence, I would take a more balanced stand on this issue: Science certainly contributes greatly to the society, however, it does has it drawbacks, which cannot be ignored. It is not a menace to civilization, but neither is it something which only brings good to the society.