Energy and ecology: hybrid cars in Singapore
Posted by: dorcas on: November 7, 2008
The world that we live in today is no longer like what it used to be. Technology has improved, medical sciences have advanced, and economic world has become globalised. Life seems to have become very comfortable, or so we thought. Alongside with the comfort of life due to modernization, comes the problem of environmental degradation and pollution. Effects of environmental degradation are very serious and eventually lead to problems such as global warming, acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer. All these would result in serious problems for the existence of mankind. Many countries hence have put in place green plans in order to do their bit to delay the harmful effects of environmental degradation.
Singapore has also been actively trying to do its bit to save the earth. This can be seen from the various activities the government and non governmental organizations, such as the national environment agency spearhead. From small scale activities such as recycling bins in housing estates and Wednesdays declared as no plastic bag day to large scale activities such as saving gaia, Singapore has been trying to cut down on the amount of pollution it produces. One way which Singapore tries to reduce pollution on roads, is the encouraging of usage of CNG cars.
CNG cars refer to cars that are running on natural gas. These cars produce only water vapor, carbon dioxide and small amounts of carbon monoxide, all of which are not harmful to the earth. As such, CNG cars are very environmental friendly. However, in Singapore the usage of CNG cars are not very common.
Initially, I was pretty puzzled at the low figures as well. CNG cars would actually cost lesser in maintenance fees even though the initial cost of purchasing a CNG car may be high. Cost savings are largely due to the rebates that Singapore government provides for using green cars. On top of that, fuel prices for green cars are also very much lower as compared to a normal car running on petrol. If green cars are advantageous, how come there are only about 700 green cars on Singapore’s roads?
One of the reasons I can think of is the lack of awareness in Singapore. After reading through how some people felt about CNG cars, I feel that these people are actually more interested in finding a cheaper alternative from the normal petrol run car, rather than wanting to do their bit for the world’s environment. The seriousness of the environmental degradation has not yet hit Singaporeans. Doing our bit for the environment should involve sacrifice rather than trying to advantage ourselves at the very end. This thinking of cost savings most likely has something to do with the way these green cars were packaged. From the very beginning, the cost savings characteristics of the green cars were always used as the selling point. Perhaps, that is why consumers think of green cars as a cost saving measure. When they realize that government rebates are so low and that the costs of the CNG cars are so high, they no longer feel that is a cost saving measure. This is most probably why there are few green cars on Singapore roads.
I believe that CNG cars can help reduce the pollution on the roads. However a lot has to be done before we can see Singaporean streets filled with these CNG cars. The government first has to remove the association of green cars with cost savings, and then promote environmental awareness in Singapore. On top of that, the government themselves have to be aware that their promotion of green cars are not supposed to benefit them, but to benefit the earth. Hence the government should not use green cars as a market to make profits, but instead encourage the use of green cars only because they care about the earth.
I think this essay is badly written. Had to rush this out.
Technology: The new form of communication
Posted by: dorcas on: October 30, 2008
In the world that we live in, technology is always constantly and rapidly changing and improving. Much of modern day invention aims to improve the quality of our lives, to provide us with better comfort as well as to fulfil our endless material wants. With such modern day inventions, our lives are constantly improving and changing. One of the latest inventions has to be the social networking website, facebook. I believe that facebook will be able to ignite some changes in our life. In fact, some changes have already been made to the way in which we communicate because of this new invention.
Facebook is a social networking website created by a group of Harvard students. Initially, the website was created only for fellow Harvard students to share photos and to catch up with each other. Soon, this networking website became open to the rest of the public. Facebook has now become a very widely used social network, connecting people together, from strangers to acquaintances to close friends. It is a like a one stop information centre that allows us to view photos of our friends, as well as leave messages and catch up with long lost friends. I have noticed that in recent months, a lot of communication has been done through the facebook website. I realised that many people have started to use facebook as a platform to ask about the well being of their friends and some even use facebook to wish their friends on special occasions such as birthdays. This goes to show that facebook has slowly become a new tool of communication.
Can facebook really become a new form of communication? In my opinion, facebook as a means of communication is not really very safe and it lacks the privacy as well. Many people are happy with the services that facebook provide, except for one problem, the problem of privacy. 
Recently, there has been much talk about one of facebook’s newest service, which is the spreading of personal information without consent from the user. Facebook notifies the friends of users about their purchases. Some of such incidents may lead to awkward situations occurring. Imagine yourself purchasing a pregnancy kit from online stores, and everyone around you knowing about your purchase. The next day when you go to work, everyone around you ask about your pregnancy. How awkward that will be! This lack of privacy and the openness of facebook make it rather unsafe to use. You never know, your boss or arch rivals may have been using facebook to check you up.
Another issue that I have with facebook is the fact that it does not have a personal touch. Unlike emails or short messages, wall messages left on facebook are not made private. They are open for everyone to see. This reduces the ‘personal touch’ that other forms of communication encourage. If facebook becomes a new tool of communication, I believe that many of us would lose the ‘personal touch’ that is present in many face to face relationships. We might have known a lot of other people through facebook, but the depth of each personal relationship may be diluted.
However, even though with all these shortfalls, I still believe that facebook is a up and rising star as a communication tool between friends, acquaintances and even strangers. Perhaps due to the fast pace of our society, this quick tool which allows us to catch up and learn more about the lives of our friends at our own convenience is hence gaining popularity. Perhaps there would even be a day where people would ask others to check out their facebook profile when the other party wants to know more about them. This saves the hassle of giving a personal introduction. A quick, hassle-free and fun way of communicating with a small loss of privacy and personal touch still sounds like a pretty good deal to me. 
References
1. Thoughts on facebook—http://www.cit.cornell.edu/policy/memos/facebook.html
2. Are facebook feeds good or bad—http://www.ipatrix.com/facebook-feeds-good-or-bad/
Population and Health: The overcrowded Singapore
Posted by: dorcas on: October 23, 2008
In 2005, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made a shocking announcement. He foresaw Singapore to be home to about 6.5 to 7 million people by year 2030. Last year, however, he scaled down this value to a more comfortable 5.5 to 6 million people. Currently the population size of Singapore stands at about 4.6 million, yet, we can already hear many Singaporeans complaining about overcrowded public transports or overpopulated housing estates. A population of 6 million seems a more comfortable value as compared to the initial 7, but is Singapore able to withstand such a big population?
Every single time I take a public transport with my mom, she would always remark about how packed the trains or the buses are. Even though we might have taken a public transport during the off-peak hours, there always seems to be a crowd. She is constantly comparing this situation to the past, and telling me how the trains and buses didn’t use to be so crowded. The crowd has been increasing greatly, so much so that my mom finds it is faster if she walks to her destination rather than take the train for two MRT stops. This is already the situation that is occurring at a population size of 4.6 million, can you imagine what will happen when the population size grows to 6 million?
This issue is very crucial. It is more than overcrowded buses and trains or roads with endless traffic jams. It is about how the people would feel in an overpopulated city. It is about the lack of personal space. It is about the differences which might occur between foreigners and citizens. All these are very issues are far more serious than we think it is. They are able to affect how Singaporeans feel about Singapore.
What does it mean to have a population of 6 million? Let me illustrate how things might become. With a very small land, and such a large growing population, HDB flats will become even more densely populated than it already is. Size of houses would shrink, while the number of units on each floor would increase in order to house more families. HDB flats would also be built to be as tall as possible to maximize space. With such a high population density in each block of flats, waiting for lifts might also pose a problem. Personal space would be greatly reduced. Commuting to work or school everyday would also become a serious issue. The trains would be very packed, and missing two or more trains would become an everyday thing. On top of that, I believe that when our population reaches 6 million, the country would be streaming with foreigners. Some government policies which aim to attract foreign talents might be interpreted by citizens as favoritism towards these foreigners. There would then be a great possibility that hostility might occur between locals and foreigners. Singapore would become overcrowded and overpopulated. Perhaps, it might even come to the extent that we would be unable to find a quiet place for ourselves. I believe that when Singapore comes to such an extent, many Singaporeans would leave the country for another.
In my opinion, an overpopulated country is not necessarily a healthy country. Perhaps Karl Marx is right that people are the land’s best strength. However, I feel that an overcrowded state seems to bring more harm than good. I agree that people are Singapore’s best resource, but overpopulation would lead to Singaporeans feeling alienated and distant from Singapore. On top of bringing about problems like spread of diseases and widening the inequality gap, it would also affect how Singaporeans feel about themselves as well as Singapore. It is hence very important to know the optimum population size for Singapore, so that we can prevent overpopulation.
Urbanisation: Urbanisation, necessarily ‘evil’?
Posted by: dorcas on: October 17, 2008
When I think of the term urbanisation, I tend to associate it with positive effects. I use to think that urbanisation creates opportunities for people in the rural areas. It gives these rural migrants a chance to become better off due to the greater job opportunities available. On top of that, there are better health care facilities in the urban areas and thus better healthcare can be provided to the rural migrants. I had this idea that urbanisation is all good. It was only after learning more about the social problems, then did I discover that urbanisation is not all good. Urbanisation seems to be the one of the root causes of some social problems, such as crime and inequality. Yet, urbanisation is able to bring a country one step closer to modernisation and globalisation, as well as encourage economic development. The question is how do we exploit these positive effects of urbanisation and reduce the negative consequences? Is it even possible, or does urbanisation always have to be ‘evil’?
I know it is undeniable that urbanisation plays a part in social problems such as crime and inequality. Crime, for instance is a large part due to urbanisation. When the rural migrants move into the urban areas, they are living in the same community as the rich. Some of the rural migrants are not well educated and hence may not be able to find employment in the urban areas. These unemployed rural migrants have no money and thus cannot afford to stay in proper housing. They have no choice but to put up in slums, where most of the people living there are probably in the same situation as them. As these rural migrants are living in the same community as the richer city dwellers, they might develop low-self esteem. In extreme cases, they might even harbour anger or hatred towards the richer city dwellers. This visible inequality might then lead to crime. The rural migrants are pushed to their wits ends and may see crime as an opportunity, and not as something which is negative. This is probably how urbanisation results in crime.
However, there are models of urbanisation which are successful, like in the case of Curitiba. When professor showed us the video, I found myself wowing at every scene. I think Curitiba is indeed an excellent role model with regards to their urbanisation plans. What sets them apart from the urbanisation of the other cities is that, they are people oriented, instead of being economically oriented. Their urban planning actions are built around individuals instead of being built around economic growth. In some cities, the people are seen as means to bring about economic growth. Perhaps that is why in some cities, urbanisation results in the many social problems. What I admire most about Curitiba is that they consider those who are not as well-off. The exchange program is a great solution to help those who are less well-off. With this solution, the government is able to render help to them, without turning into a welfare state. I admire the way in which they turn problems into solutions.
What I feel is that, urbanisation is not necessarily evil. Yes, the negative effects of urbanisation are obvious in some cities, but this does not mean they are necessarily evil. I think the effects of urbanisation depend on how the government carries out their plans. In the case of Curitiba, urbanisation seems to be very successful. Their philosophy of ‘transforming problems into solutions’ have shown the world that we are able to exploit the positive effects of urbanisation and at the same time, reduce the negative consequences.
References
- Orienting urban planning to sustainability in Curitiba, Brazil —http://www3.iclei.org/localstrategies/summary/curitiba2.html
Politics of identity and globalisation: The Singaporean Identity
Posted by: dorcas on: October 10, 2008
Since the beginning of Singapore’s independence, the government has been trying to foster a Singaporean identity among Singapore citizens. The government recognises that a common identity is very important to nation building. People with the same identity usually feel that they share something in common and hence will tend to cluster together. With this in mind, the government has been trying to create a Singaporean identity that all Singaporeans are able to identify with. The government has invented the slogan ‘uniquely Singapore’ to express the identity of Singaporeans. I do recognise the government’s effort in promoting nation building, yet as a Singaporean I find myself unable to agree with this Singaporean identity imposed upon us.
Having lived in Singapore all my life, I must say I really enjoy being a Singaporean. One of the things I love about being Singaporean is our creation of a new language, Singlish. I find it particularly disturbing that the government has been trying to do away with it in order to portray a professional image. Singlish is a language created by Singaporeans and is something unique to us. In fact, it is what I use to identify fellow Singaporeans when I am overseas. I am sure this is the case for many others as well. I believe this is what identity aims to do; allowing us to foster something in common with others. Singlish is part of Singaporean identity and the doing away of Singlish is akin to cutting away part of our flesh.
Another thing which I feel makes us Singaporean is the unwillingness to speak up. Singapore has claimed to be a democratic society, one that seeks to make every citizen’s voice heard. Yet, it is very uncommon to see Singaporeans publicly voicing out issues pertaining to the government. Perhaps it is due to the very limited opportunities that Singaporeans have to voice their opinions. Perhaps it is due to the consequences associated with speaking up. Or perhaps it is due to the need to conform, the need to be the same as everyone else and the fear to be criticised for being different. My friend once told me ‘in Singapore we have to follow others, if not we die’. Indeed, it seems like this idea of conformity deters us from voicing our opinions.
I feel that Singapore citizens have a set of identity, but the government is trying to create another set of identity for all Singaporeans. It seems to be that the government is trying to impress foreigners by creating this new set of identity. For instance, the speak good English campaign is quite obviously trying to promote a professional and educated image for Singaporeans. The emphasis on Singapore as a cosmopolitan city state with many different racial groups seems to me as a bait to attract foreigners. The portrayal of Singapore as unique and full of Asian flavour is perhaps a stint to attract more tourists.
Studying Singapore closely and carefully, we would be able to find many characteristics that make us unique, but perhaps not those which are portrayed by the government. In the past, the government wanted to foster a Singapore identity for the ease of nation building. However, today, the government seems to be trying to foster a new Singapore identity in order to gain further economic growth. These governmental actions make me wonder whether we are ‘people of the state’, or are we just ‘people for the state’. At present, it seems to me that the situation is the latter.
This is quite interesting.
Recent Comments