Marc Ong 2i218

A little late, but I've been meaning to write on this so here goes.
A few weeks ago, we had our first taste of Student-led conferencing, an iSpark-only initiative where students are given a chance to talk to their parents. The objectives of this program are to allow students to have a chance to communicate with their parents, enabling them to express their aspirations as well as reflect on their past failures and successes.

Honestly, I was pretty worried about this. I prepared feverishly for the SLC, expecting to be judged based on some rubric, some set of requirements at SLC. However, it was an entirely different story on the day itself. There wasn't even a teacher present at the SLC session itself and it turned out to just be a casual chat with my mom. No one to pressure me to say something politically correct or appear perfect, no one to take down notes disapprovingly while I stammered. All in all, it was kind of nice to be able to sit down with my mom (father was unable to make it) and talk about something we normally never would, that is, my future plans that I wish to achieve. I suppose this is the beauty of SLC- it gives you an opportunity to let your parents know you better, without any pressure from normal academic standards.

As for those whose parents could not make it and had to speak to teachers instead, I feel sorry for them. SLC should be an opportunity for you to share your personal aspirations with your parents, and although teachers might be kind enough to lend a listening ear, it might still be too awkward to share some things with them. I hope parents realise the importance of SLC, giving parents an opportunity to connect with their sons.

Well, Friday's CA was certainly interesting (and not just because I got to play MM Lee in the debate). The current affairs debate was on the Government's reactions to complaints regarding the recent flash floods in Singapore. On one side, various Singaporeans argued about the Government's supposedly inadequate response to the flash floods, while the other side defended themselves.

We had a rather interesting Geography lesson last week, which talked about land reclamation in Dubai. Unlike Singapore, where land is reclaimed because... Singapore is tiny, Dubai's land reclamation projects are actually grand projects aimed at increasing Dubai's tourism income.

Finally, after more than 2 years of intense planning, the inaugural 2010 Youth Olympic Games are coming to Singapore. However, as shown in this poll:http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/90-per-cent-not-interested-at-all-in-yog/, Singaporeans show a disturbing indifference to the games. 90% of people surveyed were not interested in the YOG at all.

I feel that in the play, while there are examples of mercy being shown, it is too often due to selfish motives to be considered "real" mercy. As Portia said in her speech about mercy in Act 4 Scene 1, "The quality of Mercy is not strain'd". This means that real mercy is not forced, it is done purely out of one's will to show mercy to the offending party.

For example, when the Duke spared Shylock's life in Act 4 Scene 1, "I pardon thee thy life before thou ask it", he has his own motives: he wants to prove himself better than what he considers "an inhuman wretch". As shown later in the scene, he is not really showing mercy to Shylock, as Shylock says "You take my house when you do take the prop/ That doth sustain my house. You take my life,/ When you do take the means whereby I live." This shows how the Duke is not killing Shylock outright but leaving him to die- a far more cruel fate. Shylock, alone in the world after his daughter abandoned him, is left an old bankrupt Christian, preventing him from practicing money lending.

Another example of how "false" mercy is shown in the play is how Portia toys with Shylock in the court scene. She leads him along, making him believe that his case is solid and giving him chances to show mercy-not because she wants him to take them, but rather to make sure that he contradicts himself when she tells him of the loophole in his bond. Portia has no right to be an actual Judge, but still administers the penalty of forfeiting all his goods to the state. This shows how "false" mercy is often merely to lead others into traps.

In Elizabethan times, the anti-Semitic audience would probably have believed that Shylock was shown pure mercy and justice due to their belief that he was a generic villain. However, now in modern times Shylock is seen as a morally grey character, thus showing how some characters are hypocritical in their treatment of him.

After more than three months, it seems that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is finally drawing to a close:
http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/08/04/1619420/lawmakers-focus-on-chemicals-used.html?storylink=mirelated
While this is certainly great news, it is obvious that there is still a great deal of oil in the ocean to clean up (up to 4 million barrels of oil spilled). The surrounding area should be cleaned up as fast as possible to prevent any further damage and pollution to the wildlife in the area.

As it looks like America can finally begin to put the oil spill behind it, I think there are some lessons to be learnt from the American reaction to this situation. Obviously, regulations involving drilling platforms should be tightened to ensure that this type of accident does not happen again. However, after the oil spill, various Americans cried to to boycott BP (http://www.facebook.com/BoycottBP). They felt that BP was ruining their country. While this is true, they forgot that the explosion was an accident. Boycotting BP would not solve much in the long run. After all, what would someone do if they boycotted BP? Go to Shell? Exxon? Those other oil companies have had their own environmental accidents in the past, and yet people can decide to boycott BP just because theirs was the most recent.

I believe such a problem should be solved from its root- America's dependance on oil. They use the most oil in the world and it is this insatiable thirst for it that has caused oil companies around to world to try and find as much oil as they can. As long as America keeps up its demand for oil, companies are going to be drilling as much as they can- a situation where accidents can easily occur. I am not saying BP is not to blame for the oil spill, but I do feel that American people's responses to it have been rather hypocritical.

The recent STOMP article written about how teachers took away students' belongings has been a source of controversy both on STOMP and among Hwa Chong students. In the article (submitted by an angry secondary 4 student who wished to complain about the school's practices), it is described how teachers took away student's belongings that were left unattended on tables*. I feel that the student was being very inconsiderate by tarnishing the school's reputation. Although it is understandable that he might be angry after he had his personal space invaded and his belongings taken, he should have taken his complaint to the school administration itself rather than making this issue public. The matter could have been resolved quietly and internally instead of what it has become now- a public mess. The STOMP article has attracted many hateful comments toward Hwa Chong students and the school, questioning their "giftedness" if they can make a mistake as simple as leaving their belongings around.

My CA interview was on the 26th of April(if I'm not wrong), with Andrew. We discussed the responsibility of countries' respective Governments in compensating their airlines for losses incurred when all air traffic was stopped for a 5 or 6 day period due to the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull. Overall, I think it went pretty well. My stand was that the Governments are at least partially responsible for the airlines' losses and should compensate them partially, while Andrew felt that since the eruption was a natural disaster, the Governments should not be blamed for the airlines' losses.

Without going too much into the details of the discussion, I basically felt that since the Governments were so disorganized, they should also pay partially for airlines' losses. However, I feel that I could have improved my discussion as I was slightly too harsh toward the various European Governments. Although I still feel that they assessed the risk of the volcano badly and could definitely have met and organised themselves sooner, in hindsight, I feel that it was unrealistic to expect all Governments should have been perfectly ready for this sort of massive disaster. However, Governments should definitely take this disaster as a learning experience.

When a massive cloud of volcanic ash obscures a large part of Europe, Governments and people would definitely be in disarray. With thousands of people stranded and thousands more shipments delayed indefinitely, a communications breakdown is expected. I realize now I was slightly harsh in criticizing Governments for taking 5 days to organize a conference call, as for some of them, key personnel were stranded overseas. This was a good example of how technology can be used to overcome physical barriers and distances. During the interview, I suggested that an International Organization should be set up to synchronise the actions of airports worldwide in the case of a disaster such as this.

However, as Miss Soh pointed out to me, the real reason for the long delay was the self-interests of various countries. Countries such as Britain, with the most profitable airports, would not like to be restricted or constrained by an Organization with and treated like other, less developed members of such an organization.

This was a very interesting topic for debate, as there is no clear solution to the problem. Instead, we have to weigh the pros and cons of each possible solution, and decide which one is the best overall.

This post is more of a summary of my blog thus far than an actual post. It compares my Sec 2 LA Blog with last year's, which can be found at smileyfacesblog.blogspot.com.

Here is my promised third post on the Avatar vs Hurt Locker debate.

Linguistic:

1. You have conducted an interview with one of the characters in TKAM. Write out the interview transcript, taking note to demonstrate the essence of the character and his/her point of view.

I have chosen to interview Miss Maudie Atkinson for this task.

Q: Miss Maudie, how do you feel about life in Maycombe?

A: Well, its not that bad as long as I still have my garden. Taking care of my plants helps me to pass time, since I don’t have anything else to do.

Q: Didn’t your house burn down not too long ago? How can you still be so optimistic?

A: It all depends on how you look at it. Besides, I never liked my house, and the increased garden space is certainly welcome.

Q: What do you think of Atticus Finch?

A: He’s certainly a staunch supporter of civil rights. I respect him, because he is the same in public as he is at home. Most people lead “double lives” by treating everyone differently. Not Atticus. He treats everyone politely and with respect. He also stands by his beliefs.

Q: What about his children, Scout and Jem?

A: They’re delightful children, and I give them free reign of my yard. However, I’m worried about how the stress put on them by other people affected them, when Atticus was defending Tom Robinson.

Q: What are your views on the Tom Robinson case?

A: I didn’t go the trial myself, but Atticus told me how it ended. Jem sees it as injustice and cannot accept that some people are evil, but I guess the result was kind of expected. Atticus gave it his best and I’m sure that if there was any way he could have won it, he would have.

Q: How do you believe black people should be in your society?

A: Well, I think it’s unfair that black people should be forced to be the slaves of white people. Even worse is the attitude of people toward the trial. To them, they know that Tom Robinson cannot possibly win, and just go there thinking of the trial as entertainment.

Intrapersonal:
a. Who would you want to be friends with in the novel? Explain.

I would probably want to be friends with Scout and Jem Finch. In the first part of the novel, they have fun with Dill with their fascination with Boo Radley. They’re also much simpler than other characters, as their beliefs are not yet clouded with society’s prejudices. They’re willing to trust that someone is good, and this is why Jem is so badly shaken after the Tom Robinson trial. Jem and Scout embody pure and innocent children at the start of the novel. Most other characters would not be trustworthy, as they are racist merely because of peer pressure and the anonymity of being in a mob. However, Atticus has raised his children not to retaliate against other people’s insults, and not turn racist like other people.

Yay, Hi everyone. I'm writing this after the long 4-and-a-half day weekend to celebrate Chinese New Year, so I'm still feeling some "monday blues". Still, at least the Lunar New Year still isn't officially over, so there may still be some gambling.

Hey everyone, my next post is going to be on the apple iPad. It was announced on January 27, and is due to be released in March. Anyway, the main reason why I wanted to talk about it is because it just seems like such a weird product. Essentially a bigger iPhone or iPod Touch, Steve Jobs at the keynote described how it bridged the distance between two products- the smartphone and the laptop. Being a proud owner of an iPhone 3g, I feel I have to comment on this. The very idea just seems strange to me. With a 9.7 inch screen, it is obviously too big to be carried around in your pocket. Which leaves carrying it around with you (obviously awkward) or carrying one in your bag. This is definitely a con. If you wanted to bring it around with you in a bag, a laptop seems a more feasible option for a little added weight in exchange for better performance. Not only that, but laptops can be kept in bags because they have "flip" designs, so the laptop's screen will not be damaged when jostled around in a bag with other items. The same, however, cannot be said about the iPad with its "candy bar" design.

Ok, so now on to The Hurt Locker. Firstly, if anyone is reading this post first because it is on top, please scroll down first for part 1.

Okay, hi everyone. My post today is going to be on the debate on which movie will win "Best Picture at the Academy Awards on March 7. Both movies have been nominated for Best Picture and I have seen both movies. An example of this debate would be:http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/02/oscars-academy-award-nominations-avatar-the-hurt-locker-594182736-news-story-article.html

My next post is on the new subject, Malay studies in our timetable this year.

Yesterday we had our first Socratic Seminar. Although it was only a mock session, it was still pretty engaging and interesting. In the inner circle, 5 out of 8 people were actually unprepared, and the teacher in charge of our class had to show the article on the visualizer before we could begin. Still, it was an interesting experience, with many people still raising interesting questions and answering others answering them. Still, I am a bit confused as to the exact purpose of a Socratic Seminar. Is it to ask questions, to answer them, or to debate on current affairs?