Oslo

Recently, Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 people at a popular campsite on the island of Utoya. The world was stunned by the brutality and the atrocity of the event, condemning Breivik for his actions.

I think that what is most shocking here is that Breivik may escape capital punishment. Norway has not suffered such a high number of casualties since World War 2, over 60 years ago, and such violence is unheard of there. In 1988 Norway agreed to abolish capital punishment during peacetime. However, I sincerely hope that an exception will be made here. Can someone who has killed 69 people simply get a jail term? I think that there is a definite lack of logic there. It would be an injustice to those killed, as well as to their relatives, to let Breivik off.

I think that this also highlights the importance of not taking peace for granted. Norway is an extremely peaceful country, and after so long without conflict, many Norwegians took the peace they enjoyed for granted. Breivik managed to pull off 2 terrorist attacks in 1 day without being caught. I was stunned to read that he managed to plant a bomb outside government buildings, killing 8 people.

However, I was dumbfounded at his motive for ending the lives of so many people: to prevent Muslims from taking over Europe. I failed to see the connection between his motive and his actions. How does opening fire on a youth camp prevent Muslims from coming to Europe? I feel that his Islamophobia is completely irrational, considering one of his childhood friends was Muslim. There is nothing different between a Muslim and anyone else.

I feel that the Oslo attacks could definitely have been avoided, and it is a great tragedy that it occured.

Penny Low

Recently, Member of Parliament Penny Low was photographed looking at her handphone during the National Day Parade, while the national anthem was being played. Singaporean netizens immediately critisized her as being "unpatriotic" or "disrespectful". I would like to voice my view on this subject.

I think that Ms Low was definitely in the wrong here. It is common knowledge that one is supposed to stand at attention during the national anthem. By looking at her handphone, she is being disrespectful to Singapore.

That said, I feel many netizens are also being a bit too opportunistic in critisizing the PAP. Many of the comments on Temasek Review said that she was a poor role model, and that she should "practice what she preaches". I feel that this is a bit far fetched. To be honest, how many people really look to their MP's as "role models"? Do we really idolize them to that point? I think that it is enough to say she was being disrespectful.

Ms Low quickly gave an explanation for her behaviour, claiming that she was caught up in the moment and wanted to take a picture of the fireworks. I do not think that this explanation is very convincing. Was she so enthralled by the fireworks that she forgot the basic mark of respect every child learns at school?

I think that Ms Low should have known better than to act in such a way during the singing of the national anthem, but also I feel that netizens should not blow this incident out of proportion. Yes, she made a mistake, but I think it is forgivable.

National Day Parade

A couple of days ago, I watched the National Day Parade live. However, after the parade, I felt distinctly underwhelmed. I felt that this years parade was not very well planned, and it failed to capture the proper emotions that should be present on Singapore's birthday. In this post, I would like to talk about both the good and the bad points in this year's NDP.

Firstly, I felt that this year's NDP lacked creativity. The NDP started off well enough, with the usual marching etc. but when it progressed into the story, I completely lost interest. The storyline was simplistic, and also cliche. I do not think many people were able to connect with the skit. I also feel that the "growing up" story is overdone and fails to "wow" citizens. The acting was also not very good, and it conveyed very little emotion to me.

Secondly, I do not think that this years NDP captured the "Singapore spirit" at all. The dancing char siew bao's added some humor to the performance, but the play was needlessly long, and most of the audience tuned off halfway through. I think that there are much better ways to show the "Singapore spirit".

However, a good point was that I felt the actors and the dancers were all enthusiastic about what they were doing. I think that enthusiasm is very important as well, and the performers accomplished that well. The actors in the play looked as if they enjoyed themselves, and their attitude definitely improved the play.

In conclusion, I do not think that this year's NDP was as good as last year's, but I enjoyed most of the performance :)

Maycomb Tribune

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54603292/Maycomb-Tribune

O.K

Ok is one of the most commonly used terms in the world today. Whether it is in emails, text messages, or daily conversations, "ok" is a widely used phrase. It generally means a consent by somebody to do something eg. "Ok, I'll do it". However, when millions of people are spouting this word, how many actually know what it means?

"Ok" is actually not as new as we think. It was likely that it was being used in the 19th century in the United States. There are many different proposed origins of "ok", from the Scottish expression Och Aye, to the French aux Cayes, but it is most likely that "ok" actually stands for "orl korrekt", a deliberate misspelling of "all correct".

The earliest use of "ok" could be as early as 1790, where it was claimed that a court record used the word, "proved a bill of sale from Hugh McGary to Gasper Mansker, for a Negro man, which was O.K." However, the first generally accepted use of the word was in the diary of William Richardson.

Little do most people know what one of the most commonly used slangs in the world mean. I hope that after you found this post interesting, and not just a useless piece of trivia. :D

Thoughts on Hwa Chong on Stomp

Lately, there has been a post on the popular website Stomp, with a picture of Hwa Chong boys eating ice cream in a bus. The post is entitled "Even students from elite school can't follow no-eating rule on bus". In this blog post, I would like to express my views on this incident.

Firstly, I feel that this post has somewhat stereotyped students from elite schools. In the title, I felt that the author did not have to emphasize that the students were from Hwa Chong. The word "even" also irked me out. Just because we are from Hwa Chong does it mean that all of its students will be perfect? Everyone has their share of imperfections. What makes it so that all elite school students have to be perfect, simply because of their uniform?

However, I felt that the STOMPer was not wrong in posting this issue on STOMP. Eating on buses is against the rules, and I feel that there was nothing wrong in posting this. After all, STOMP was created so that people could give their views on issues like this. Eating on buses is something that Singaporeans should stop, I mean, thousands of Singaporeans ride the bus everyday. Who wants to ride on a bus that's dirty? I feel that posts like this actually can reduce the number of people who commit such acts. No one wants to be publicly humiliated on STOMP. Such posts actually indirectly help society.

In conclusion, I do not feel that the STOMPer was not wrong in posting this. After all, the students did eat on the bus and flouted the rules. However, Singaporeans need to remove the stereotype that all elite school students are well behaved. What makes it so that a student from an "elite" school should act better than a student from a neighborhood school?

Essay: What aspects of my education will be most useful in my adult life

Education is an important part of all our lives. From the tender age of 7, we start our long winding road of education. Education lasts for different lengths of time for different people, with some studying till the age of 30. Education affects our lives no matter the age, and it decides our occupation, salary, and even our social lives. Though some may say that education is non beneficial to our adult lives, I feel that many aspects of our education does come in useful in our adulthood.

Firstly, I feel that the most useful aspect is literacy. Without literacy, one cannot survive in the modern world. So many things are printed in black and white. Without basic reading and writing skills, how would one function? Education comes in to provide these skills to the population. Literacy is enormously important to our adult lives. Without understanding contracts, tax payments, letters, where would we be? Would we be like people in the middle ages, without any knowledge of literature?

Secondly, I think that the second most useful aspect of education is bilingualism. With the world constantly changing, and China on the rise, I feel that bilingualism is an extremely important tool. English alone cannot possibly sustain us, and many of us may well go overseas to work or study. If we cannot communicate, how would we function? I feel that the third language program in Singapore is a good platform for students to expand their horizons and familiarise themselves with a foreign language.

Thirdly, another useful aspect is communication skills. Nowadays, many jobs come with an interview which plays a large role in deciding if you get the position or not. Education helps us learn to communicate better. In Singapore, students are encouraged to make constructive comments in lessons and presentation skills are honed from an early age. Our adult life constantly requires us to communicate with colleagues or customers, and in our social lives as well.

In conclusion, education plays an extremely important part in our lives, even in adulthood. Many skills we use in school can be utilised at work as well. Education plays as large a role in adulthood as it does in our youth. As Aristotle once said, "Education is the best provision for old age".