JOY: Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

The amalgamation of traditional media such as films with the interactive power of computer and communications technology, new media has made a positive impact by allowing interaction from viewers and readers from all over the world. Unlike traditional media which only allows the dissemination of information, new media encourages participation from viewers and readers, such as by giving them a platform to air or act out their views. An example would be the free hugs campaign, a social movement, which started in Australia. Individuals showed their support for the campaign on their blogs, and a music video regarding it was posted up on Youtube by a band. Through such use of new media, many came to know about the movement and the campaign was thereafter carried out in Singapore as well by those who supported the campaign. Of course, this would also mean new media encourages viewer interaction on negative activities such as terrorist activities. However, that is only the minority, whereas majority of new media users do not use it in such a negative way. Therefore, new media has in such a way, changed our lives for the better.

The Economist: Special Edition

Find out what other people think about our Singaporean approach to water.

Kai Lin/To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society?

Singapore has a family-friendly workforce culture. The government and companies in general have many policies and schemes that help employees strike a good work-life balance. Because of a declining fertility rate, the government has taken steps to encourage procreation by giving mothers extended maternity leave. Some companies such as Creative and Keppel Singapore also have family-friendly schemes. By having ‘Eat With Your Family Day’ at least once a year, these companies are sending the idea that they recognise the importance of family life to their employees, whether young children or elderly parents are the ones who need time and attention back at home. However, in terms of school life, Singapore is not family-friendly. Students often leave the house in the morning and return home in the afternoon. They only get to spend the weekends and evenings with their parents for some important bonding. In fact, some career-minded parents would even not be home in time for dinner and end up hardly communicating with their children on a daily basis. As such, parents with schooling children may not feel that Singapore is family-friendly because of their differing schedules. However, not all parents are career-driven. They can apply for leave to go on vacations with their children once in a while because of the very same policies provided by the government and companies. Therefore, Singapore is a family-friendly society.

Yina: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

I think that a state should have a right to monitor the actions of people when racial and political issues are not being handled well in a country. These sensitive issues can cause harm to the society as people living in the country may start to segregate due to different views or beliefs. This would cause the country to be unable to be economically productive as they find it hard to cooperate with the people in their own country. For example, due to certain political issues, Bangkok is now having a internal conflict due to a certain political party wanting to take over the government. This has caused Bangkok to lost lives of their citizens due to violence and also a economic loss of tourists visiting Bangkok. Therefore, I feel that the state should have a right to monitor actions of people whenever it comes to political issues as serious consequences affecting the economy and society are severe. However, I feel that the state should not have a right to monitor the actions of people when personal rights are being infringed. When their personal rights are taken away, people would be very unhappy for not being able to enjoy the freedom of what they want. This would result in citizens not being supportive of their own government causing the government to lose power. For example, in Singapore, smoking is banned in many public areas like the bus stops, at coffeeshops and even at void decks. This has caused many smokers to be very unpleased with the law as they feel that their personal rights are being taken away. With these public places being banned from smoking, smokers are left with very few public areas to smoke at when they are outside. Thus, I feel that the government should not monitor or control the actions of people when personal rights are being infringed. Even though they should not monitor people when it affects personal rights, I feel that the state should still have a right to monitor actions of people if political or racial issues are involved,

Carmen Chan/ How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

The government should have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders, especially during stressful times such as war; as long as its monitoring does not result in the violation of human rights. The state possesses the highest power and therefore has jurisdiction in virtually all areas that society has to deal with. Hence, it does have the right to monitor the actions of people. In times of war, famine, disease and violent acts will arise. In such times, the general public is unable to control and detain the situation, thus requiring the intervention of a higher power. For example, the state should have the right to implement a curfew during a war. This helps keep the people safe and reduces the chance of a violent protest or riot that may result in more deaths. During the recent clash between the red shirts and the yellow shirts in Thailand, the state intervened and imposed a curfew to monitor the actions of the Thais. This action has prevented more deaths and kept the people safe. Thus, the state should intervene in times of war to help control the situation. However, the state should not intervene when it violates human rights. The purpose of the state monitoring is to benefit the people; however when the state crosses the line and invades the privacy of people, this right should be revoked. For example, the CIA in America has the authority to monitor anyone without the person legally consenting to it. This has resulted in the unhappiness of Americans and resulting in Americans losing faith in their legal system. Hence, I believe that the state should have a right to monitor the actions of people when in dire situations such as war but not at the expense of the privacy of people.

Shazunah: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

A state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders to ensure the safety and welfare of the people in the state. Most governments which are non-corrupted would aim to provide the best to the people of the state. They would not want bloodshed or disorientation of the state to happen and even if it does happen, government intervention would take place. However it is observed that successful countries are often led by participatory governance where democracy is practiced through the participation of the citizens. Therefore the government does not have the right to monitor the actions of the people all the time because such participatory governance allows the people of the states to be the watchdog instead. This provides the people of the state with a more direct role in decision making and allows them to have a say in issues that is happening in the state. For example in Singapore where voters or campaigners are allowed to have licensed protest to ensure that riots does not happen. This shows that a certain extent of monitoring is done by the state to ensure that the welfare of the people is not at risk. Hence a state should monitor the actions of the people when it could possibly cause harm to the state.

Xingjie/How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is for the purpose of the country’s security. With the increased terrorism and disunity in today’s world, there is an increasing urgency and need for the state to monitor the actions of people within its borders so to ensure the security of the country. The monitoring of the actions of the people would provide the state with leads of any undesirable activities being planned by the locals, giving the state a head start in to take action against the planned activity. For example, the United States government constantly monitors the actions of its people. This has lead to the uncovering of several bomb attempts. Armed with this information the United States government was able to take timely action to foil these attempts, thereby ensuring the safety of its citizens. However, the state should not have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is infringes in the personal lives of the people. The monitoring of the actions of people may lead to unhappiness among some who feel that their personal rights and space is being violated. For example, some people may have a “second personality” when online or a private life unknown to others and they strongly keep this to themselves. Hence, the state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders when its intervention is for the purpose of the country’s security and whatever information gathered is kept private.

Wen Rui/Family, Marriage & Gender Roles: Evaluative

To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society? (mjc/2997/jc1/)
I believe that Singapore is a family-friendly society to a large extent. Singapore is a family-friendly society especially in the role of creating a family conducive environment. As there is a need to alleviate the problem of low fertility rate of 1.28 which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1, the Singapore government has implemented many pro-natal policies in bid to encourage more live births per women. Family friendly policies include extending the maternity leave from twelve weeks to sixteen weeks and improving the Baby Bonus Scheme. Hence Singapore is a family-friendly society especially in terms of creating an environment that encourages larger families.
However Singapore is not a very family friendly society when some of their family planning methods excludes men. Most of the policies to encourage live births are for women and exclude giving benefits to men. For instance, the American company Google Singapore is one of the rare companies in Singapore that provide paternity leave to up to one month. When looking after children requires both parents, the lack of attention given to men in their role of a father in caring for their new-born babies is not pro family and thus may discourages fathers to be involved in their parental care. This often results in one-sided care from the mother. In this area, Singapore is not a very family-friendly society.
Nevertheless, Singapore is a family-friendly society to a large extent.

Amirah/ Evaluative

How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The state should have the right to monitor the actions of people within its borders if it infringes the nation’s security. It is the government’s obligation to ensure its people’s welfare is not thwarted by external and internal threats, thus the government would have to monitor the actions of its people to achieve security. By monitoring its people’s actions, the government would be fully informed of any misdoings and suspicious activities should it be carried out. Such insidious acts would be detrimental to a nation’s harmony and may affect the sense of security citizens have of their nation. For example, the state should have the right to monitor terrorist activities as terrorism has the ability to put the welfare of the whole nation in a vulnerable spot. Hence, the government has the right to monitor the actions of people with its borders if thwart the nation’s security. However, the government should not have the right to monitor the action of people within its border as it invades one’s human rights and limits personal freedom. If the government were to monitor the actions of every individual, many would feel unhappy and choose to disrespect the government. This would lead to social unrest and instability of a nation should the problem get out of hand. For example, the FBI in USA proposed a widespread monitoring and screening of every phone call within its borders in 2008. This was met with heavy criticism and evoked unpleasant feelings among citizens towards the government causing many to question the government. Hence, the government should not monitor if it infringes one’s personal freedom. However, the nation’s security is more important than one’s personal freedom as it holds the whole country’s well-being at stake. Thereby, the government should monitor the actions of people within its border if it threatens the nation’s security.

yinan / How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The state should have the right to monitor people’s actions when if it might affect the country economically or socially. For example, the government monitored the people who are allowed to enter the casino such that people with financial problems are denied access. In this case, the state has the right to monitor so as to prevent any negative consequences like heavy debts or the vulnerability to bankruptcy, which affects society as a whole as Singapore might be susceptible to economic crisis and retarding the development process. However, the government should not monitor the actions of the people if it invades personal privacy or individual rights. Although the government is in control of the whole country, basic courtesy and respect for every individual cannot be dismissed. For example, individuals have the right and choice to decide when they are to marry or procreate. Personal issues like this should be contained within ourselves because if the government were to control the age that we are to procreate (as a result of changing population structure), to some, it may be a sensitive topic and others might see this as a barrier to freedom of what individuals are to do. Thus this can lead to unhappiness amongst people. Despite this, I think that the government should be given the right to monitor the actions of its people as his aim is to better our current social welfare and living conditions of the country. Apart from that, the government is deemed as the group of people who understands the country the best and thus by monitoring people’s actions, it allows the economy to achieve greater heights of development. In a long-run, the quality of life of people will improve.

Hawa: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The state should have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders if the consequences of the actions of a person have an impact on the country as well as its people. The government’s role is to ensure that the welfare of the people in the country is well-looked after and to increase or sustain economic growth. If monitoring the actions of the people is what the government needs to do to ensure the society’s welfare and spur economic growth, then the state should have a right to do so. This can be illustrated in the case of Stalin’s dictatorship over Russia before World War II. In order to increase the farm’s output to alleviate the problem of famine in Russia, he introduced collectivization. In order to ensure the people complied with his policies, he sent secret spies to monitor the actions of the people. This has successfully increased the farm’s output in Russia over the years as those who did not follow his policies were exiled. However, the state does not have the right to monitor the actions of the people if it leads them behaving against their own will out of fear. Every citizen in the country ought to have the rights to do the things they wish. However, they may not do so if they are aware that their every move is being watched and monitored by the government. This will cause them to behave against their wishes and they may follow the policies of the government because they have to and not because they want to. This can be illustrated in the case of Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. Hitler had his own spies known the Stormtroopers who set out to catch citizens who were plotting against him or going against his policies. This created fear and suspicion among the Germans during that time and they blindly followed his policies. This clearly does not ensure the society’s welfare and instead creates a nasty environment for the Germans to live in because they could not trust anyone and they lived in fear. Hence, the government should not monitor the actions of the people if it infringes on their personal rights and creates a problem within the society.

Eunice / To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society?

Singapore is a family-friendly society when the government takes the effort to ensure that family members have time for one another despite the fast-paced way of life in Singapore. When the government is concerned about the relationship between family members, Singapore is considered a family-friendly society. This is because the government sees the importance of family time as it bonds family members. An example of how the government ensures that Singapore is a family-friendly society is through the implementation of the five-day work week. With this implementation, people only work for five days out of seven days in a week, and this will allow parents to spend more time with their children during the weekends. This policy shows that Singapore is a family-friendly society. However, Singapore is not a family-friendly society when governments do not ensure that all family members have enough time to spend with their family. Although the five-day work week was implemented, it does not apply to every Singaporean. The five-day work week only applies to people who work in the civil service while the other working adults might still have to work over the weekends. This will cause the lack of family time, which leads to Singapore not being a family-friendly society. Also, children nowadays have more commitments in school, which takes up their time during the weekends. Therefore, Singapore is a family-friendly society only when the government ensures that everyone has enough time for their family, not just the civil servants.

leling/ To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society?

To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society?
Singapore is a family-friendly society when the government considers the welfare of families. When the welfare of families are being taken into consideration, government would implement policies and building infrastructures that caters to families. For example, the government implemented the five-day work week in 2004 to encourage families to spend their weekend having bonding sessions and doing activities together to foster better family relations. Besides, the government also built attractions that cater to families. For example, Sentosa has come up with attractive family packages and provides a good place for families to hangout and bond together as they could have a family outing at Sentosa. However, Singapore is not a family-friendly society when Singaporeans do not spend quality time with their families. When Singaporeans are unwilling to spend quality time with their families, government’s effort to make Singapore a family-friendly society would be futile. For example, most youths would prefer to spend their leisure time with their friends instead of their families as they are at an age where they would prefer to hangout with people of their same generation where they find an identity. Hence, during weekends, these “children” of the family would usually go out with their friends rather than their parents. Thus, Singapore is a family-friendly society when the welfare of families are taken into consideration when implementing policies but not so when the Singaporeans do not respond to the policies implemented.

Cherlyn/ To what extent is Singapore a family-friendly society?

Singapore may be a family-friendly society as long as Singapore is not a work-driven society where people always see their work as the most important thing to do. Parents must be able to have time to spend with their families and not spent all their time only on work. To make Singapore more family-friendly, the government has step in by implementing some policies as well. For example, the five-day work week has been implemented into civil service to reduce work pressure and to improve the quality of family life. This enables parents who are working in the civil service sector to be able to spend more time with their children during the weekends, thus promoting a family-friendly society. However, Singapore may not be a family-friendly society as there are still parents out there who still spend most of their time on work. Not everybody have the privilege to have enough time to spent with their families. For example, the five-day work week only targets the people working in the civil service. Hence, only a minority of the people are able to spend their weekends with their families. Those people who are working in the private sector or are self-employed may not have the time to spend with their families due to their heavy work load. Hence, Singapore may not be a family-friendly society as only a minority of Singaporeans are able to have spare time to spend with their families and the majority is still too busy with their work to have time taken off to spend time with their families.

Yi Lin/How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

A state has a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders to ensure peace and stability of the state. The state has a right to monitor the actions of the people who have harmful intentions such as doing things or spreading untrue messages which will create fear and suspicion among the people of the state as it concerns the welfare of its people. For example, a private school student was convicted in 2005 for spreading racist remarks on the Internet. The Singapore government can monitor the blog posts of Singaporeans on the internet to see if anyone is spreading remarks which racist or spreading the terrorists’ ideas. However, the state should not monitor the actions or the people when it violates their privacy. For example, the state should not view the letters, hand phone messages and emails that people send to their friends or relatives as the state should respect the idea that the documents are not meant for any third party. This is unlike what the people post on blogs or forums which are meant to be seen by the public. Therefore, the state has a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders as long as they do not invade their privacy.

Yee Tat / How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

The state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders as long as they do not infringe upon its people’s privacy unless it is a matter of national security which threatens the lives of many. Even so, it should be considered by a case-by-case basis as the basic right of an individual is that he or she has his own personal space which should not be invaded by anyone without his permission. The state should only monitor people who threaten national security such as suspected terrorists, mentally ill patients who not only pose a threat to himself but to others around him and released convicts as they may return to their old ways of crime. They should only monitor its average citizens while informing them they are being monitored so they do not feel it is an invasion of their privacy. It is the state’s responsibility to look after its people by protecting them from people who carry a threat risks to others. One such example is the Singapore government who assigns police officers to monitor recently released convicts and have agents keeping a watch on suspected terrorists so they can stop them in time if they are plotting something against the government. However, monitoring of its people should not go to an extreme to the point it resembles USSR when Stalin was in charge. He had spies everywhere to monitor everyone to minimize the threat of anyone rebelling. This caused the people to live in terror and in fear of trusting anyone. This is an infringement of basic human rights as they are deprived of their freedom to do things they like. Hence while the government should monitor its people for the sake of national security, they should not do so in self interest like Stalin who made the people live in fear while he tried to hold on to his position. Thus the government should monitor its people but not with too much intensity and its people should be made known of their monitoring with the exception of people who pose a threat to national security.

Afiqah: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

A state has a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders only with the objective of ensuring those actions do not compromise safety or welfare of the general public. The primary role of the state is to maintain order in the running of daily activities and in order to fulfill the responsibility in making certain that the people in its borders are not endangered or vulnerable to threats and being implicated in a harmful fashion by the activities of another, the state has a right to be informed of their people’s whereabouts and activities to allow it to take effective measures. For example, the state of New York intervened appropriately when there was a homemade bomb that was strategically placed in the boot of a car parked along one of its busiest streets. With immediate instructions ensued to a team of bomb specialists and police officers who helped to steer the crowd clear from the street, the situation was able to salvaged successfully. However, the state should not abuse its right of being in the know in an authoritative fashion by restricting its people to carry out activities of their own preference. This can lead to the state governing in a strict and inflexible manner, verging on practicing soft paternalism. This would upset its people should they be confined to choices provided by the state government only. For example, Singapore does not approve of same sex marriages hence offending homosexuals in the state. It is thus without doubt that the state should be in informed of the activities of its people but not abuse the same knowledge in accordance to their laws.

JOY: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

States have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders when these actions affect it in areas such as state welfare or security. While people who belong to a certain state should be held accountable for what they do within the territory, the government should take care of members of the state by being concerned with the welfare of the general population by monitoring the actions of its people so that society is kept peaceful. An example would be the monitoring of drug abuse in various states around the world, such as in Singapore. The population is tightly monitored and drug abusers are often given harsh sentences, such as a fine of $2000 and a jail term of 3 years. This is because drug abusers tend to not only harm their families by draining family finances to obtain drugs, but they also often turn to illegal activities such as stealing from the public, so as to afford the drugs they need.

Of course, such a right should not be given and misused by the government for their own selfish intent as at times, states over-monitory the actions of the people within its borders only because they want to ensure they have full control over its people. They invade in the privacy of the people who lose their freedom and rights as a human. A popular example would be North Korea, a communist state. The government controls the population, even to the extent of regulating and monitoring the type of television shows they watch. Reason being they do not want the population to be influenced by external cultures and to always be supportive towards the North Korean government.

Therefore, states should be allowed to monitor the actions of its people in circumstances where such actions will affect the states and its population negatively. However, such monitoring by the states should be limited as people should be allowed their rights and freedom and be accorded their privacy.

Lynn/ Governance & Leadership

How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The state should intervene with the actions of the people within its borders once the country’s society welfare is threatened. To have an ideal country to live in means to have one that does not have disputes among its citizens, conflicts or even bloodshed. The government is obliged to look after the well-being of its citizens. Moreover, society is labour-driven, citizens are the one that work and generate income for the country which in turn affects the economic progress. Thus, when harmony does not prevail within the borders, the state should intervene to control the situation. An example would be The Red Shirts in Bangkok, where the people attempted to overthrow the elite government, which led to bloodshed. The government stepped in and tried to have truce. Through the “Red Shirt” incident, the death toll has risen drastically. This shows that society’s welfare was threatened. However, the state should not monitor the actions of people within the borders as the citizens have their own rights to decide what they wish to do. It is difficult for the government not to have differing views on many issues that the country faces, and as the government has never put themselves into the shoes of the citizens, they may not fully understand the situation. An example would be the “One Child Policy” in China where the government coerces its citizens to have only one child. On the contrary, the government did not regard children as economic assets in the agriculture industry and treated them as liabilities – the opposite of what the citizens think. Therefore, this proves my point that the government should not intervene with matters that they have never experienced first-hand. Hence, the state should only monitor people’s actions when the society’s welfare is being threatened.

Yi Lin- Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media has changed our social lives for the better by allowing us to know what is happening in other people’s lives every day. Without new media, people had to visit their friends or relatives frequently or talk on the phone to get in touch with each other. These activities are time-consuming and expensive, considering the travelling time and cost and the phone bills we receive at the end of the month. With the help of new media, we can view the blog posts, photos of others whenever we want to. For example, with social networks like Facebook and Twitter, we can post comments, pictures and videos about our daily lives and our friends will be able to view it. This makes it convenient for us to get in touch with our friends as we will be able to know what is going on in their lives and comment on them. It is also time-consuming as we do not have to meet up with them personally to be able to talk to them. However, people may feel that socializing using the internet is not as good as meeting our friends in person as they are limitations to what we can do on using the computer. For instance, we cannot touch them physically. Some may feel that this is what makes it different from talking to their friends in person. But with the improvements in technology, we can ‘poke’ others using Facebook and see them via webcams on MSN. Therefore, new media has changed our lives for the better as it makes socializing more convenient.

Yinan / Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media has changed our lives for the better in a way that it makes communication much easier than it used to be. Before the invention of new media, even trying to send a message would be a very difficult task because manually, it takes a lot of procedures before it could be received. Now, with the new media out there, it is very effortless and efficient to communicate with people. For example, with the many alternatives of online networking sites like Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, and email, it is very easy to communicate with the person you want to. This has greatly benefited our lives because it saves us a lot of precious time just to send out a message to people from your region and also, from other countries. Yes, some might rebut by saying that new media has made people to become increasingly overly-reliant on mass media to work in their daily lives such that when it fails, there are no alternative for people to continue with what they are doing. However, this only happens when the user is not responsible for his/her own work such that they did not save it in another place like the thumbdrive. If users are responsible, even if the computer is bound to crash, he/she will not have a problem. Hence above all, if new media were not invented, life for people would be much harder and troublesome. Thus, I think that new media has changed people’s lives for the better because it has saved us a lot of time and trouble by making communication much more efficient and easier.

Lynn/ new media

New media has changed our lives for the better because people are more interconnected now even though they may be miles away on Earth. Before new media was available, transmission of information may take months or days depending whether it was sent via post or by the ships. When new media such as Twitter or Facebook is introduced to the society, people are able to communicate instantly with each other via the Internet. More innovative ideas are generated, shared and some are even implemented to allow people to have a better quality of life as society’s welfare is improved in many aspects such as healthcare and education. An example would be in the United States where an online petition was held in favour of the theme “No Child Left Behind”. The main objective of this petition was to ensure that every child was given an opportunity to be educated and learn a skill that would last them for a lifetime. When the young are able to be educated, they may grow up to be learned people that would contribute to the society. From this example, we can see that the effect of new media is crucial to improving communication, and that it would have an impact on the future generations when useful policies are being implemented.

Have the new media changed our lives for the better? (vjc/2007/jc2/ct)

New media has changed our lives for the better as enriches our lifestyle. New media like the internet has facilitated learning as it allows interactive user feedback and creative on-going participation from the users. This results in better quality of education and that it has improve our creativity and learning abilities, thus enriching our lifestyle. For example, internet forums such as Sg forum by the Singapore online community allows discussion and users exchanged their views on different topics or news that happen in Singapore. This interactive relationship with the users is beneficial and this broadens their perceptions in many areas. Hence this has changed our lifestyle for better. However, one may say that the online discussion might generate problems when it becomes a platform for internet users to insult other users and speak without restrictions. However, the positive educational lifestyle effects that new media creates outweighs the negative impacts that irresponsible minority users might bring.
Wen Rui

Evelyn/ Has New Media Changed Our Lives For The Better

New media has changed our lives for the worse because people are now more isolated from one another. This causes society to misinterpret and lose commmunication with one another. In today’s society, people especially the youths use numerous forms of new media as a source of information and especially for communication. This encompasses the internet, television and handphones. The usage of such media as a source of communication reduces the need for face to face contact as everything that needs to be relayed on to the other party can be done through mediums such as text messaging, facebook and e-mails. As a result, this causes most of society to become isolated from the rest of the world. This can be seen in today’s society where youths use text messaging to talk to others. They have become such a huge consumer group that many providers have acknowledged them as part of their consumer base. Such an act occurs as youths tend to use text messaging to relay even the simplest of messages to people who may be just next to them. Such a trend as society progresses will grow elevating the problem and cause increased isolation that will result in miscommunications and social breakdown.

Yee Tat/ Has New Media Changed Our Lives For The Better

New media has changed our lives for the better as it allows the spread of information to occur at a faster rate and greater quantity. People no longer have to meet up just for the sake of talking in order for them to catch up with each other’s activities. In the context of our society today, forms of new media include the Internet, digitally enhanced media to allow them to be interactive. These technologies enable friends living far apart to keep up to date with each other with ease. Before the introduction of sites that allows online chatting like Windows Live Messenger, people had to go to trouble of calling other people, as an added bonus, it is free compared to calling overseas which costs money. Critics of these online networking sites claim these sites reduce face to face contact which may result in them being more isolated from others. This is an exaggeration in my opinion. With a large majority of youths using these sites, they still meet up regularly as these sites are in addition to a means of communication instead of replacing the traditional means. Therefore new media is an added convenience to people as it makes the spread of information easier.

Cherlyn / Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media is to encompass the amalgamation of traditional media such as films, images, print etc with the interactive power of computer and communications technologies. New media has no doubt changed our lives for the better as it allows us to collect information faster and more efficiently as compared to the past. People can get access to information anytime and at any place with the use of any digital devices. This is so much better as compared to the past where people can only get information through doing their own research or from other people. For example, people today are able to use the internet to get the information that they want as long as they have their laptops and Ipods etc. With the invention of the Wi-Fi internet access, people are also able to surf the internet at any place they want at anytime to obtain information. This is a very efficient way of obtaining information as time is considered very precious to people nowadays. Thus, new media has indeed changed our lives for the better as it allows people today to be able to get hold of information as quickly as possible, unlike the past where people has to obtain their information manually.

leling/ have the new media changed our lives for the better?

Have the new media changed our lives for the better? (vjc/2007/jc2/ct)
New media have changed our lives for the better as people could now spread information to a large audience within a shorter period of time. Being able to spread information to a large audience within a shorter time can help to make things more convenient. For example, google can reach a over 158 million US monthly people. This means that people can now spread their messages across a wide range of audiences through the internet in a very short time. Before the advent of new media, information can only spread through television or printed media such as newspapers, magazine, books etc. Such media channels are usually unable to get the necessary attention within a short time as compared to the new media nowadays. on the contrary, people can now share their thoughts with a mass audience via blogging. As blogs are opened to the general public, everyone can access to the blogs and hence are able to comment on it, giving feedbacks to the blog posts. This can create an interactive platform between the writer and the readers. Hence, new media has changed our lives for the better as more audiences are reached.

Shazunah: Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media have changed our lives for the better as it allows access to information content anytime, anywhere and on any device. This result in efficiency in information sharing across the world, for example, the digitalization of written work can be published on the cyber world and recognition can be gained. Such works that is published received credits and much more responses than having the written work sold on the bookshelves. This is because in the modern society people are more technology savvy and they are reliant on new media to provide them with the best source of everything from music, film, images and to written word. This would provide a platform for new talents to emerge through the use of ‘Youtube’ and ‘Myspace’ to spread their music hence allowing people to stage their talents and gain opportunities for them as production team does scouting online as well. However this would offer many job opportunities to those who are talented in the music arena. All these digitalization of written work and music and film have enabled the composer or author to go beyond their national boundaries and may have received audience from the international level. Such great spectrum of audience allows diverse sharing. Hence new media have changed our lives for the better as it creates opportunities.

YINA/ How has new media changed the lives of people?

New media has now improvised the lives of many people as new media reveals information that they may not have come across before. The internet allows a wide range of information to be spread around the world. As the internet is now very accessible, many people are able to do research and get information or statistics from the internet or even post about what interesting facts that they chance upon. Before the advent of new media, people are only able to gather information from books or from their teachers if it is academically related. But for now, new media changes the lifestyle of people as more rely heavily on the internet for information. It is also more convenient as compared to spending many hours trying to obtain information from a small part of a book. For example, it is estimated that 400 million google searches are done per day since the invention of new media. This shows that many people now obtain information from the internet and thus are heavy-reliant on technology changing the lifestyles of people.

Kai Lin/Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media has made our lives more convenient. In the past, the usual means of getting information was through print media, the television and possibly the radio. Now, a vast and mostly-free pool of resources is available on the internet, and we can all access it with just the click of a button. The internet provides users with easy-to-use tools such as search engines to access facts and figures whereas traditional media does not allow us to have specific questions answered and trying to do so would take much more effort and time. Examples would be the search engine giants Google and Yahoo. However, some would argue that new media is unreliable because some of its content is user-generated. The popular, free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is one such example. As long as information is properly-worded, anyone reading the professional-sounding text can be fooled into believing that those are facts when in reality are made up by others. However, whether or not the false information on the internet is used depends on the user. With rising levels of education, people have the ability to decide for themselves if the information is credible. Also, search engines allow for multiple sources of information to be displayed on the same page, allowing users to cross-refer to confirm before believing the information presented. Therefore, as long as we are careful enough, new media will make our lives more convenient.

Eunice / Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

The new media have no doubt changed our life for the better by making people more connected than ever. With new media, people can easily connect with others, be it people just living a few houses away, or people living in a far away country. New media have allowed people to share their thoughts, photos and videos with people all around the world through the various websites available on the internet. As compared to the past, a click of the mouse can allow people to find out a lot of information on a particular person as people have become more open about placing their private information on the internet. Before the advent of new media, it was not easy to communicate with others living in another country. Although it was possible through the use of letters and parcels, it was a slow process. With this change, people can instantly become connected with the world. An example of new media is the famous Facebook website that allows people to communicate with one another simultaneously. People can add their friends to their profile page which will enable them to share their photos and videos. Users can also choose to add people that they do not know, thus widening their social circle. With the ability to communicate with people all over the world, the new media have made people more connected than ever, thus increasing efficiency.

Carmen Chan/ Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

The new media has changed our lives for the better as it provides us with on-demand access to content at any time. This means that people are able to be interactive with the media and can easily obtain information as long as they have a computer with internet access. For example, in the past, students needed to tediously search through the wide range of library books or slowly comb through a newspaper to search for relevant reading materials. However, with the new media, individuals can easily access the internet and obtain information in five minutes versus the three hours it might have taken a person in the past without new media. Hence, I believe that the new media has changed our lives for the better because of how convenient it is to obtain information.

Afiqah: Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

The new media have positively impacted our daily lives by cultivating an interactive relationship with media consumers. With the amalgamation of traditional media and the interactive power of communications technology, computer- enabled consumer devices and most significantly the Internet, new media permits individuals to gain access to unlimited information content accessed online at any place of time of the day. It highly promotes user feedback, creative participation, thus allowing individuals to express themselves with ease in online forums and various discussion web pages such as blogs and photo logs. This dynamic capacity of the new media have cultivated participative users of the Internet as it encourages responses thanks to the commenting and liking tool made available on many informative sites. However, not all of these responses are beneficial. Immature and irresponsible users of the Internet may provide upsetting comments which could lead to a case of cyberbullying.

Xingjie/have the new media changed our lives for the better?

The new media has changed our lives for the better as it allows us to organize social movements for the benefit of everyone. With the introduction of new media such as Facebook, YouTube and twitter, it has allowed user generated content to be uploaded and posted online in mere seconds. This thus makes it easier for the public to organize social movements as they are able to reach out to a wide range of audience in a short period of time, gathering support for their cause. One example is the Free Hugs Campaign, a social movement involving individuals who offer hugs to strangers in public places. The hugs are meant to be random acts of kindness, performed just to make others feel better. It aims to make the world a much happier place to live in. Hence, the new media has indeed changed our lives for the better as it allows for the easy implementation of social movements to benefit the public and society as a whole.

New Media - Amirah

New media has changed the way information is being circulated and the speed of which we get our information, thus improving the accessibility of attaining information. Before new media, the traditional means of mass media which usually comes in the form of print is the main source one’s information. Thus, one would have to wait for stories and articles to be published before getting hold of the news. However with new media, such as the Internet, information is now available at the tip of our fingers. The accessibility and speed of attaining information has drastically improved as it takes mere seconds to find the desired information through the internet’s search engine. Hence, this has drastically improved our lives as we are updated on current events and need not rely on published articles to attain important information. New media has allowed us to acquire information at much faster speeds, thus benefitting society as we are no longer outdated. For example, websites on the internet such as Channel News Asia gives live updates on the world’s events. Also, Channel News Asia has collaborated with social networking sites such as Twitter which allow its users to be constantly and instantly updated on current affairs. Hence the presence of new media has improved our lives drastically as it allows us to attain information at a much faster speed and thus we are constantly updated and need not fear being outdated.

Hawa: Have the new media changed our lives for the better?

New media has changed our lives for the better as it encourages social networking and it broadens the social circle of the user. This is because as users create their own online profile, they allow other users to have access to their own personal information such as their age, sex, marriage status and even photographs. This can broaden one’s social circle because they can easily be acquainted with someone who shares the same interest as them simply by adding them as friend. However, some users may be reluctant and wary of making friends online because they can never be sure if the virtual online profile truly and accurately portrays the person in reality. This reluctance need not be a problem as these sites allows users to reject friend invitations. An example of such new media which has encouraged social networking is Facebook. This site is no doubt broadening the social circle of the user as it has millions of users from many different parts of the world. Not only does it enable users to meet and befriend people from other parts of the world, but it also allows users to be updated with their close friends and family member’s without the texting or calling through the use of status updates. Hence, it is true that new media has changed our lives for the better as it allows users to expand their social circle.

Want more babies? Men, step up.

Low birth rates in Singapore may be linked to lack of gender equity

Hawa / Reality TV at 10: How It's Changed Television — and Us

3 main points of the article.

1. Reality is more than a TV genre now. People are getting more and more desperate to get their five minutes of fame, which leads to instances like the Balloon Boy hoax and Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashing a White House dinner.
2. Outrageousness pays in Reality TV. The writer said that the crazier their antics are, the more attention they receive.
3. Reality TV makes people famous and rich for nothing and not hard work.

I agree with the writer to a very large extent. Reality TV which was once upon a time used to consist of shows like American Idol, Survivor and The Biggest Loser which were family friendly are now revolutionised to have more shows targeted at teens like Jersey Shore and The Hills. Unlike family-friendly shows, these "revolutionised" reality shows feature these "stars" dressed skimpily, spewing vulgarities and indulging in things like sex and alcohol. The author said that in reality TV, the more outrageous you are, the better and I totally agree with this. Heidi Montag underwent up to 10 plastic surgery in a day which included breast augmentation, collagen lip injections, and rhinoplasty. After her surgeries, she was the featured in many tabloids and received a lot of media attention. However, seeing that such shows are targeted at teens, what kind of message does this send out to them? That it is okay to be insecure in your own body because you can't always go under the knife to fix them? Furthermore, these "celebrities" are earn high salaries just by having their private life broadcasted on national television for the world to see. Perhaps they feel that showing the world how they live their daily lives shopping, surfing and partying till late at night is a good way to get a high salary. But then again, these "celebrities" were born into high-income families, meaning money was never an issue for them.

Afiqah / The Philippines: Freedom and the Media

This article highlights the role of media in the Philippines during the election process and how it has been reborn to emerge more powerful with greater freedom to report the stages of the election objectively.

The author feels that the Philippines who were once governed by a controlled press did not seem to benefit much from it. I agree with his sentiments as opinions and perspectives of the public with respect to their national leaders are largely based upon their portrayal in the media. With limited coverage and questioned credibility of the news reports, it is of no surprise that the Philippines would not submit their faith fully in the government because of their insecurity and lack of confidence in their leaders. Thus it is better to have an objective and responsible press which is able to provide extensive coverage in the most honest truth without any censorship as much as possible. I believe this is a half a battle won to gain the support of the people during an election.

The author also addresses the historical facts about the Philippines significant milestones of the press media such as the Marcos regime as well as the controversy about threats being made to advertisers.

“I don’t think they would look out for me,” she said. “I have to look out for me.”

The Tell-All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline

Kai Lin/Is the U.S. Ready for a Female President?

Summarise the article’s three main points. To what extent do you agree with the writer? Give at least one example supporting your answer.

The article talks about whether America is ready to have a female head-of-state (as Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, was a very likely possibility at that time). It presents three different points of view on this issue.

The first point of view is the American people's. According to some polls (by CNN and Gallup), at least 60% of Americans believe that the country is ready for a female president and 88% said they would vote for a well-qualified woman for president.

However, some people beg to differ. The second point of view comes from some researchers from the Northern Illinois University. They stated that there is a significant proportion of Americans who are hiding their true feelings with regards to female candidates for presidency when they participate in such polls. This means that the polls might not be as accurate and hence America may not be as ready for a female president as they seem.

The third point of view is by well-known world leaders. The article quotes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (under the George W. Bush administration). Prime Minister Blair thought that people aren't as biased or prejudiced as they seem, and that the best person should get the job, regardless of gender or anything else. Ms Rice felt very strongly that America was ready for a female president.

I agree with the world leaders that the writer quotes in this article. The world today is much more developed than it was in the past. This is reflected in the way we treat people of different ethnicities and backgrounds. One example would be the way White Americans used to treat African-Americans. There used to be a lot of discrimination against African-Americans, but now, after the emancipation of slaves and civil rights movements, Americans in general are comfortable enough with African-Americans to elect Barack Obama as their first African-American president ever, in 2008. Hence, like what PM Tony Blair said, people are really a lot more rational and unbiased than they seem to be. In this case, the belief that it should really be the best person (and not the best man) for president is what most Americans seem to have. Therefore, I believe that modern Americans would be less prejudiced towards any particular race or gender and would support the most qualified and capable presidential candidate, be it male or female. America is ready for a female president- it just depends on whether there are any competent and reliable female candidates in the next election.

Shazunah Aman/ Singapore's Law Minister vs American Economist

Summarise the article’s 3 main points. To what extent do you agree with the writer? Give at least 1 example supporting your answer.

Overview:
The article is about the response of Singapore's law minister to Dr Caplan arguments on Singapore having a democratic government.

1) Various laws nitpicked by Dr Caplan are as follows;
(a)Conscription: state slavery (national service), forced to go through
(b)Death penalty for drug trafficking: murdering people for selling intoxicants
to willing buyers is sheer barbarism

2) Singapore's law minister Mr K. Shanmugam defending the idea of a democratic
society stating that elections are free from irregularitites.

3) Singapore is a city and not a country as claimed by Singapore's law minister
hence it cannot be compared to America which is a country with a bigger
population.

My views:
The near PAP-dominance of the city council where they hold 45 out of the 48 occupied seats reflects upon the votes of the the citizens. Despite the desire for lower taxes and cheaper public services, votes are still made to PAP despite the unpopular policies made. I believe that Singaporeans understand the rationale of such policies although they may not be desirable. Improvements and maintainance can be seen around Singapore hence people are more willing to pay such prices. However i do feel that the government should relook on various laws to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans and provide more aids for those who needs it more.

Eunice / Western Criticism of Singapore

Do you agree with the writer’s thoughts? Is Singapore’s success really the cause of all these criticisms? Pick two points raised by the author, and comment on them.

Yes, I agree with the writer that Western criticism of Singapore is due to Singapore’s success.
Throughout the years, Singapore is seen as a role-model in terms of how the government manages the different problems in the country. South Korea’s President asked his civil servants to study Singapore’s experience in rooting out corruption, and India’s Minister for Women looked at Singapore’s practice of controlling the migration of maids. With these economically inclined countries following the method that Singapore handles problems, Western countries are unhappy because they think that it degrades their way of governing.

Singapore is an authoritarian state – personal freedom is given up for the prosperity of the country. In contrast to this, Western countries are democratic. With more countries following authoritarianism, the West thinks that Singapore is out to trap its way of ruling, to show others that economic prosperity cannot be gained through democracy. Since Singapore is successful in spreading its influence, it has led to increased criticism by the West as they see it as a threat to the way that they govern their country, despite reassurances like “Without the American dream becoming the Asian dream, today’s Asia would not be possible.”

Also, I agree with the author that “criticism is the sincerest mode of flattery”. Singapore, being a tiny dot on the map, is able to gain the spotlight from so many other bigger nations. Many have thought that Singapore would fail as a state, but they have been proven wrong. This attracts curiosity as their system works and others believe that there is much more to Singapore’s success than just what is shown on the surface. Not being able to fully understand the success of this small nation, people from the West have since started scrutinizing Singapore, which I believe is largely due to jealousy.

Therefore, I agree with the writer that Singapore’s success is the cause of all criticisms.