Student Credit Card ......Debts

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/296539/1/.html

The credit card is becoming increasingly popular amongst students and this can be partly attributed to the vigorous marketing campaigns made by the various credit card companies. However, along with this popularity also comes the problem of the massive amount of debts accumulated by students. Many have voiced concern over this, and some even suggested disallowing students without income to have credit cards.

However, I would like to point out that although it is true that many college students get into trouble with debt, so do many full time workers. When a bank gives a card to a college student and the student accepts, this is an agreement between two adults. It may go wrong (as many other adult agreements do) but the choice to enter into the agreement lies with the parties involved.

But there is a significant difference between an adult and a student – that fact that most college students do not have stable income or an established credit history, unlike adults. This is the criterion ordinarily used to determine if an individual is creditworthy.

Thus credit card companies are going against their own rule of thumb by extending credit to students. Why would they want to do this? The answer lies in profits.

Credit card companies can afford to gamble. They extend a $500 credit line to a student who is eager to buy and probably has no hope of ever paying off the balance. He will make feeble attempts, and the money goes directly to fees and late charges. If his parents step in and pay the bill for him, it's a win-win for the credit card company. If the student defaults, his credit might be ruined early on in his life, but the credit card company has, no doubt, already recouped the original $500 in late fees and penalties.

Credit card companies offer to extend credit; they do not promise to be ethical. Out of the thousands of college students they entice, a certain percent will have the ability to pay, another percent will be bailed out by parents, and the unfortunate remainder will be under duress and throw good money after bad in late fees and interest. They will also learn, only too quickly, how the friendly credit card company, waving tempting incentives to sign them up, turns ugly and vicious when the inability to pay sets in.

The majority of students are naive in money management. They go directly from their parent's home to the university dorm and thus have not been exposed to budgeting. If they are employed, those jobs are often part time or low paying. They are not yet experienced enough to deal with the intricacies of establishing a good credit history and it's impact on their future.

As a student myself, I can understand how one can easily be persuaded by attractive advertisement as well as peer pressure to get a credit card even if he or she does not have adequate financial knowledge to protect myself from debts. Thus, if a student desire a credit card, and understand how to use it efficiently, they will seek out the credit card company. The credit card company should not be stalking the student and interfering with the college experience.

Mass marketing is a common practice, but when such practices starts to create problems to a large portion of our future generation, then the credit card companies should take up the responsibility and stop marketing campaigns specifically targeted at students solely for the purpose of making profits.

15 September 2007
The Straits Times

THINKING ALOUD
A teacher's disclosure and the issue is out in the open

By Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor

We are supposed to be a society that is evolving and becoming more accepting of changing social norms.

But Mr Otto Fong should know that we remain largely and deeply conservative.

Despite what blog- and Net-savvy Internet users are calling a brave outing online last week by the teacher at a top all-boys school about his being gay, there is a larger and quieter majority more apt to regard the recent actions of Mr Fong as some kind of misguided honesty or stunt, one that they worry could cause more harm to those students that the disclosure purports to help.

By all the accounts that I have seen online and in The New Paper, Mr Fong, 38, is an A-one teacher; one who has continued to receive the support of those students who blog, or who have responded to discussion threads on the numerous sites that picked up on his outing.

While he has removed his posting from his blog, reportedly after discussions with his superiors, many others have posted copies, so it continues to generate debate.

There are those who salute his decision and the honesty with which he has put his case across.

It must be a difficult decision to go public about being gay.

But it is one thing to do so to those nearest and dearest - family, relatives, friends - and another to do so on an openly accessible platform like the Internet.

It is apt to spark all manner of responses and consequences, as Mr Fong has now found out - most immediately, of course, in the reaction from his employers.

It is not just in the nature of Singapore society and the variegated opinions that exist here about how we feel towards those who are gay.

The outcome of that debate continues to be moulded, with the loudest voices not surprisingly coming from those at both ends of the spectrum of tolerance.

But in the issue at hand, it is also being shaped by the nature of the job that Mr Fong holds and, with that, the kind of interactions and influence he can have over his classes.

No one has made any accusations and nothing untoward exists about his conduct, it must be emphasised here.

But it is in the perceptions, the fertile imaginations, the what-ifs - all of which colour the discussions.

Let me illustrate with the case of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho in that most often-cited bastion of tolerance and openness, the United States.

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport men's room after being arrested for lewd conduct. He then withdrew his confession, strenuously denied he was gay, and said he did nothing inappropriate.

But under pressure from a Republican Party concerned about the damage to its image and that of the legislature he represents, he resigned.

Clearly, over there, the private conduct of a public individual matters.

What about here in Singapore?

Mr Fong recognises and has acknowledged that he is part of a profession and an institution that 'moulds the future generation of Singapore leaders'.

What puzzles me is what he hoped to achieve in making his announcement. Was it to demonstrate that there is no shame in being of a different sexual orientation? Or was it to show that there is no bar on what profession you can be in?

Or that he believes that if senior politicians have become more accommodating with the presence and contributions that gays are making to society, then it is fine to out oneself?

Or maybe, as he appears to indicate, he was prompted by a point made by a young adult at a forum about the lack of guidance he had growing up as a gay teenager.

Was that the trigger? That in outing himself, he would be in a position to be of help to those youths in school who may be uncertain about their orientation at this stage of their lives?

If so, what then would he tell those who seek his advice?

One has to question the ability and the appropriateness of someone who has outed himself being able to provide neutral, unbiased advice - and the wisdom of whichever direction it is that the puzzled student has been pointed towards.

His supporters, admirers and students provide strong backing for his continued value as an educator. Some would argue that he is, after all, the same person he was before.

Perhaps Mr Fong's decision to out himself has a simpler and more fundamental basis. It springs from a natural desire to be part of a society which accepts someone for what he or she is. It was a difficult decision that he made.

But this does not obscure the fact that he is the only full-time teacher, as far as I am aware, who has gone public about his sexual orientation.

Like it or not, fair or unfair, that has now changed the dynamics of how he will be viewed by those with whom he interacts, colleagues and parents included.

Ditto, I think, for others in the profession. Because let's be honest about this: Mr Fong is not the only gay teacher in the system.

His decision may not have the well-meaning effect he intended. He should have thought about how it could affect colleagues elsewhere before making his arbitrary decision.

Many here remember the position espoused by former prime minister Goh Chok Tong in 2003 about the Government employing openly homosexual people, even in sensitive jobs.

But in the light of Mr Fong's disclosure, it falls on his employers and, more broadly, the Education Ministry, to manage what fallout there is to come from the episode, including telling the public its stand on gay teachers in its ranks.

Much as I was initially inclined to suggest to Mr Fong that it was best to have let sleeping dogs lie, his decision is generating pertinent discussion on an issue that the ministry now has little choice but to deal with.

Homosexuality and politics

First it was just gossips amongst students. Then comments started appearing on the local blogosphere. Finally, the mainstream media joined in.

Judging from the length of the articles dedicated to the incident as well as the placement of the articles, one would have thought that this had to be an important piece of news; after all, it was on the front page of The New Paper and it took up an entire page in commentary section of The Straits Times. But no, this is no breaking news. It is merely a simple act of an individual coming out of the closet using a blog post. However, it has caused quite a stir and has also started a new round of debates over gay rights in Singapore.

As teenage student, I cannot judge actions of the subject, nor shall I make a stand over issue of homosexuality in teachers and the influence that it has on students. I feel that there have been more than enough discussions on the matter, and it is also difficult, if not impossible, for me, an ex-student of his, to be unbiased towards him when discussing the matter. Instead, I would like to comment on general acceptance of homosexuality in Singapore and how politics, played a part in the acceptance, or the lack thereof, of homosexuality in Singapore

The above mentioned incident is certainly not the first time the issue of homosexuality has been brought up. Indeed gay rights activists have voiced their thoughts time and again. But ever since the last review of the penal code 22 years ago, nothing has changed. Section 377(A) which makes any sexual act between two men an act of “gross indecency”, against the order of nature and thus against the law. The law is still firmly in place, and it is like to remain so for the years to come. However ,the reasoning behind the penal code and the counter-arguments given by the government to defend this code against gay rights activists that perplexes me.

The reason given for the retention of section 377(A) was that, despite an “emotional and divided” debate over the issue, it was found that the majority voice spoke against a repeal, and that it was Parliament’s duty to respect the views of more conservative Singaporeans.

Every time the issue crops up, the gay situation is quickly written off as something that has to develop on its own and something that a majority of Singaporeans are not comfortable with. The recent incident is no exception. “Our society is still a traditional and conservative Asian society, and we must respect the fact that not everyone is ready to accept the homosexual lifestyle” It is the line that is usually used to write off any argument for gay rights. Many gay rights activists have pointed out that following public opinion

Such an argument would have been reasonable, had it been used by the government of a more democratic nation, one that would yield to public opinion easily. However the Singapore government is famous for having its own views and upholding its decisions even if it is against the public opinion. The Intergrated Resort is just one of the more recent examples.

Our government believes that the correct decision, no matter how unpopular, has to be made, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. We have a government that does not make hasty decisions simply to gather more support in order to win the next upcoming election. Instead, our government has always had the courage to oppose the public opinion for the good of our nation, as it realises that the public can often be influenced by the media as well as popular culture.

Thus, it is ironic, if not hypocritical, for the government to use the public opinion to justify Section 377A, since it has never been afraid to oppose public opinion for what it believes to be right and just. It seems that, due to the fact that the issue of homosexuality has no direct consequence on the security or economic progress of Singapore, the government has decided to sacrifice the rights of the gay minority in order to secure support from the majority.

Since the government believes that majority of Singaporeans will not be willing to accept homosexuality, the government, has decided invoke the ire of the largely un-religious gay community rather than to face the complaining (and also lose votes) from religious groups like the Christian and Catholic Churches, as well as Islam community.

PM Lee once said that homosexuality is an issue we have to approach carefully because “some people regard it as a sin” So shall we then starting ignoring the rights of the minority, simply because the religions of the majority consider a “sin”, and the government is afraid to lose votes from this majority? Will this injustice also extend to the other minorities?

Of all these we are still unsure. But one thing is certain. The fact that a minority’s right is being ignored due to political reasons should definitely not go unnoticed, for history has proven time and again that great disasters arise from such ignorance.

Hwa Chong JC student Punch Bus Driver

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130301,00.html

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130302,00.html

It was the hot topic of the week. A Hwa Chong JC student had punched a bus driver and it was reported in the front page news. Following up was the news of his father kneeling down and begging the bus driver for forgiveness.

I was shocked by the news of a top JC student committing such a rash act. But what surprised me even more were his father’s actions as well as the boy’s claim that it was “all an accident”

It was no doubt a touching story. The father’s act of self sacrifice is admirable, and his love for his song moved many. His is acting based on what he perceived as what is best for his son. However, one could not help but question the wisdom in his actions.

First let us look at the actions of the student. What the son did was definitely wrong and unacceptable. No matter how angry he might be at the moment, his anger can never be an excuse for anyone to commit such acts of violence, let alone a student studying in a school where future leaders are being made. Even if the bus driver had been provocative, violence is never the solution to any problems. As a fellow teenager, I can understand the impulse to let our emotions overwhelm us and act rashly, especially when his girlfriend is around. Still, youth is no excuse for such acts. After all, if others of the same age can control their emotions, why cannot he do the same?

Next, let us look at the incident from the perspective of the father. From what I have mentioned above, we can safely conclude that the boy had been responsible for this whole incident. Thus he should bear the full responsibility for his actions and learn from the experience. However, his father’s actions denied him this chance. The one kneeling down begging for forgiveness should not be the father who is totally unrelated to the incident. Instead the one begging for forgiveness should be the son.

Also, from the son’s claim that everything “was an accident”, it is evident that he still does not feel any genuine remorse for his actions. Is this what the father wanted?

In some ways, this incident reflects the approach that many parents take when educating their children. In pursuit of academic achievement of their children, they often forget about the character development of their children. As a result, their children make mistakes that ought to be punished. However, these parents are often over protective of their children and choose to shield from the responsibilities that they ought to take. The result of such parenting is a generation of youth that is irresponsible and weak. This incident is probably just one among the many that happen each day but are not reported. Our parents are forgetting that they cannot accompany their children for the rest of their lives, and that they need to stand up for themselves one day.

Minister Pay Rise Resonable?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/269330/1/.html

In any organization, salaries are always a sensitive issue. Our government is no exception. Perhaps this is why there were so much opinions, and even outcries, over the pay raise of our country’s leaders. Or perhaps, the pay raise is really a mistake.

To all the outcries over the pay raise just 2 months after the GST hike which itself caused an uproar, PM Lee responded by giving the reason that only a income matching that of the top earners in the private sectors is sufficient to attract talents for the government. He also mentioned that the pay raise implemented was neither to benefit himself or the currently government, but attract future generation of leaders.

However, despite the reasons that PM Lee gave, many, including myself, still remain unconvinced by the necessity of such a high salary “matching that of the top earners in the within the private sectors”

Firstly, the very fact that the government is comparing itself with the private sector is a mistake. The leaders in the private sectors work solely to gain profit, and often neglect the wellbeing of the people below them. Such leaders cannot and should not work in the government.

Secondly, PM Lee mentioned that the purpose high salary is to attract future generations of leaders to work in the government. As a student studying in a school dedicated to nurturing our country’s future leaders, I feel that our leaders should not choose to become a leader to seek wealth, but instead choose to become a leader to seek to improve the lives of the people living in his country.

Perhaps this is an idealistic view of a youth, but should not the genuine desire to improve the country be their motivation for the top talents to work for the government, instead of high pay? If the leaders of our country are motivated by money and greed to serve, how can we trust them to put our country before their personal gain?

Our current government has the heart to serve our country even with the current pay, so why should the future generation of leaders be any different?

I feel that a leader should be the one that is willing to sacrifice a part of his life for the sake of the country. If our leaders are only willing to serve the country only with top salaries that matches the top earners in the private sectors, then what we have would not be a government, but instead merely a group of managers hired to manage our country. Money should never be the motivation for leaders. The reason is clearly prove by the corruption in other countries. A true leader of a country should instead be motivated by his desire to serve the people and improve their lives. Thus, I disagree with the pay raise.

Global Warming is Coming to Town!

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/260859/1/.html

http://www.singeo.com.sg/?p=86

The issue of global warming has been discussed and publicized so much in the recent years that even publicised so much that even a 5-year-old would at least have a faint idea of what global warming is. However, global warming had always seemed like a far away issue that did not concern the tropical dwellers of Singapore. After all, how much can the melting of ice caps at the freezing North Pole affect tropical Singapore which is located at the equator? The answer is surprisingly complicated.

First of all, the greatest change that global warming would the rising of the sea level due to the higher temperature. The melting of the polar ice caps would bring about the increase of sea level from anywhere between 28cm to 6m. This, coupled with climate changes that might follow, is what has been worrying scientists all over the world for the past decade.

Singapore, with its low-altitude reclaimed lands, is at a high risk of being submerged under the water. Singapore’s main tourist attraction, sentosa would have been submerged underwater. The second best airport in the world, Changi Airport would also be swallowed by the sea water. Our ever important industrial base, Jurong Island, would also not be spared.

These frightening prospects may seem like science fiction, but the danger is there. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, deltas and small island states may be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, although sea level changes have not yet been implicated in any substantial environmental, humanitarian, or economic losses to small island states.

Singapore is an example of such a Island state as mentioned above. Thus we are very vulnerable to the effects of Global Warming.

Although National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan reassured us that Singapore would not be at risk, there is still the possibility of a 6m rise in sea level, if the Greenland icecap melts. Thus Singapore should be well prepared to face this possibly devastating disaster.

Minister Mah has already mentioned the fact that the authorities have been monitoring the regional water levels around Singapore. This is a good start towards preparing Singapore against the effects of Global Warming.

However, the public’s mindset is also very important. I feel that the government should go one step further to make Singaporeans become more aware of how close global warming is to home. The fact that the chance of Singapore being relatively safe for the time being does not mean that we would be safe forever. The government should bring about more awareness, and perhaps involve the people in monitoring the water levels in Singapore. Only then can we truly feel secure about our future.

Not another MRT accident...

http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/12/05/mrt_track_accident_again.html

“Another one?

These are the kinds of response people have been giving upon hearing the news of recent MRT jumps. Note that the “jumps” is in plural form.

Recently there have been a disturbing amount of MRT accidents happening in Singapore. This created concern over the safety of MRT stations, as well as sparking debates over the morality of ending one’s life on the MRT track.

Singapore’s MRT system is one of the few things that are uniquely-Singapore. However, due to the recent incidents, SMRT has been criticized and was put under pressure to install more safety features to its MRT stations, such as railings in stations that are above ground.

However, the installation of railings expensive, and the SMRT would have to bear the expenses of both the installation of the railings as well as the service disruption caused by them.

On a closer look, would the installation of railings really prevent anymore MRT accidents?

The older accidents a few years ago might have been caused by crowds pushing the victim onto the track, but the majority of the recent incidents are mainly suicide attempts of victims who got onto the track on their own free will. In such cases, the railings would do little to prevent them from getting onto the tracks. They can get either crawl over or simply get onto the track through the entrance.

I feel that the problem cannot be solved merely by physical barriers in front of the track. A better solution would be to get to the core of the problem and start from there.

So just why were there so many suicide attempts at MRT stations recently? The answer lies in the media. The first MRT suicide incident that was widely publicised caused a storm in Singapore at that time. The victim had decided to take his own life due to his inability to support his family financially. His story was broadcasted in all the major Medias. Donations soon flooded in to help his family, mainly due to the wide publicity. The donations eventually amounted to $500000.

This is what encouraged the victims to resort to this extreme way of supporting their family - through death. By broadcasting such incidents, the media is in fact encouraging such acts, albeit unintentionally.

Although the people have already gotten used by such incidents and donations to the victim’s families has been steadily decreasing, the frequency of the incidents has only increased.

Thus, I feel that in order to prevent anymore incidents from happening, the media should minimize the amount of exposure given to such incidents, so that no more lives would be lost.