Chinese: our mother tongue

Article:

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_151213.html

Review:
This article pertains to issues that are very near to the average Singapore Chinese student. Some find it a hassle to study Chinese and can hardly wait to drop it when they go to JC. This is even so when some of them are excelling at it and it is all because we students think that Chinese would not bring us far.

Then again, there are those students who lack this aptitude in Chinese, such as me. I do not hate the Chinese language or have any enmity with it. However, I just do not like studying the characters of this language. My grades reflect this lack of enjoyment for it. However, I do realise the fact that indeed I am a Chinese student. This is my mother tongue and has been passed down from one generation to the next. By losing this language, I am essentially forgetting my roots.

As many feel that Chinese is difficult to study, is it wise for us to lower the standards or just learn it without examinations?

I feel that this is not a solution. There is no point in decreasing standards as if one does not have an enjoyment studying Chinese, then he or she would not excel in it even if the standards were lowered. This lowering of standard would only seek to leave us lacking in the usage of our mother tongue and this would be a disadvantage in the increasingly bilingual world. Examples brought up by the writer would be that of China and Vietnam, where the people there yearn to learn a new language, it often being English.

So is it a question of Chinese being too difficult or a question of the students not making an effort? I guess that it is the latter. With perseverance, nothing is impossible. We see Europeans speaking Chinese, some even more fluent than us ethnic Chinese. Why is this so? It is because they make an effort to learn it, putting in time. It is no longer a question of anything being too difficult for one to learn, instead of it being too difficult for one to put in effort to learn.

Why don’t we try? Put a little bit more effort into Chinese and we will see that it is not impossible to excel in it. Maybe instead of decreasing the difficulty of Chinese, we should instead increase our efforts to overcome any learning difficulties that we face in our pursuit for greater heights.

World-class education: is this true?

Article:

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_149557.htm

Review:

This article has eloquently elaborated on the flaws of our supposedly world-class education that we are all exposed to in Singapore. Well put by Ms. Bavaani Vadivale- Nanthabalan, I feel that indeed the system of education in Singapore is “Teaching to test”, which has resulted in “a nation that is obsessed with rankings and success.”

My first point of evidence would be the fact that we students in Singapore are no longer learning for our own enjoyment. It seems to be the case that we are only learning in order to meet the expectations of our teachers and parents. These expectations often are materialized in tests and examinations, with the results determining our status in their eyes. How many of us actually study more than required? This is only so when we have the passion for that certain subject and this is also curbed by the excessive amount of other work that we have. It seems that only graded work has importance in the lives of the average Singaporean student.

We see students putting in their best for work that is to be graded. For those worksheets and assignments that are not, it is often the case that they are left in one corner, rushed at the last minute. This could be on purpose, when we feel that it is more worthwhile to do the work that would count to our grades, or could be a consequence of the massive amount of work and other commitments that we face. We work only for our marks and grades, putting effort in our CCAs just for the CCA points. It has been drilled into our heads that only these things will decide whether one gets a scholarship or not. These are the only things done in school that would count in our lives in the future.

Another point brought up by Ms. Bavaani is the fact that Singaporean students tend to be less confident, articulate and expressive. This can be considered a norm in classes, where we learn and accept what we are taught; only clarifying our doubts. Little chance has been given to Singaporean students to express ourselves in the way that we want. Students that do so are labeled as disruptive and not a good student in any teacher’s eye. Even if we are given the choice to express ourselves, we tend to keep quiet, as we have always been taught too. We have been conditioned and it is hard to change.

Yes, we are among the world’s best in terms of knowledge education. But is that all there is to schooling?

We be elite? Really?

What does it mean to be elite?

It merely means to be the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

What then does elitism mean?

It merely means practice of or belief in rule by an elite or consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

Then why all this debate about elitist behaviour in students in top -schools?

This article surveys the feelings of the pupils in our country and it turns out, students in top-schools, not students in non-elite schools, are the ones most concerned with elitist behaviours.

This article also shows how people of our society who have gotten the meaning of elitism or elitist behaviour totally wrong.

I disagree with those that habour such kinds of elitist behaviour or elitism. In students, this mostly means that one comes from a good school and does well in their academic studies. It is true that they can be considered the creme de la creme of our society.

However, this elitist behaviour serves to prove only one thing, that they are proud and lack the modesty that a good individual should have. They also forget what others have done to help them get to the positions that they are in now.

What difference does it make if one is elite now? Does it ensure that he or she will definitely make it big in the future?

I beg to differ. Although I feel that being in top-schools gives one an advantage, if one has such pride in himself or herself, then this advantage will not give them any headstart in life. I feel that if pride is within a person, he or she will not think that they need to perform to their best in order to succeed. This might not be so, but if so, these so-called elite now will only become mediocre in the future. What elitism is this then?

I believe in one achieving only when one does his or her best. The elitist behaviour will only seek to make one believe that one does not have to do their best in order to succeed. I feel that elitism at its best will only cause one to fail, never to succeed.

I guess that what I am trying to say is that elitism is not caused by wealth, education, success, schools, academic results and so on. Elitism is only a status that one gives to oneself. As with self-bestowed titles, it can only lead to no good.

I might be a bit biased in my opinion. However, I think that elitism is not prevalent in the top-schools of Singapore. It is only through the perception of the people of the society that we appear to be elitist. This might be due to our attitude towards others. In order for this not to occur, I feel that we have to change ourselves and in the process change what others think of us.

Elite?

Pub Date: 18/05/2007 Pub: ST Page: H1
Day: Friday
Headline: Students of top schools worry more about elitism
By: KEN KWEK

ST survey sheds different light on debate about elitist behaviour
MENTION the word “elite” and most people here have something to say.
For students, notions of the elite are confined mostly to which school one goes to and how well one does in school, rather than wealth, power or family background.
They also tend to think of “elitist behaviour” as that shown by those who look down on academic weaklings.
But those from neighbourhood schools are less likely to feel they are on the receiving end of such behaviour, compared to their peers in top institutions.
These were among the findings of a Straits Times survey conducted in January and February to assess students’ perceptions of the elite. Some 499 students aged 15 to 24 were interviewed.
The survey found that 41 per cent of students in 11 elite schools say they encounter elitist behaviour always or often, as compared to only 21 per cent of their peers in non-elite schools.
When asked what they consider elitist behaviour, the No. 1 choice in both groups was: to look down on those who are academically weaker.
The issue of whether one can become an elite member of society also seems to weigh more heavily on the minds of those from top schools.
The elite were defined as those who excel academically by most of those polled.

While 52 per cent of young people from top schools said it is very important or somewhat important for them to be a member of the elite group, only 43 per cent of those from neighbourhood schools felt that way.
These findings are based on a small sample but nonetheless they shed a different light on an ongoing debate over whether Singapore is turning into an elitist society, where those from more humble backgrounds feel disadvantaged and left out.
Such fears came to the fore late last year after a blog posting by Raffles Junior College student Wee Shu Min, in which she told a fellow Singaporean to “get out of my elite uncaring face”.
Speaking at the People’s Action Party (PAP) conference last December, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged successful Singaporeans not to assume they had made it on their own strengths and forget the debt they owe to family, friends and society.
In the Straits Times survey, most of those polled actually had a positive view of elites here.
When asked what they thought would be most important in helping them rise to the top of the Singapore system, hard work ranked No. 1 in both groups, followed by talent, whether in business, sports or the arts.
Very few thought family wealth was a deciding factor.
But the two groups seem to define success differently.
For students from elite schools, their No. 1 definition of success was winning a place in a top school or university. For their peers from neighbourhood schools, it was being good in sports, music or the arts.
The survey also found that wealthier students from English-speaking homes tend to cluster in the elite schools.
Some 71 per cent of those from elite schools speak English at home, and 62 per cent live in private housing, compared to 34 and 19 per cent respectively of those from non-elite schools.
The first group hailed from families with a median household income of $7,501, while the corresponding figure in the second group was $3,560.
Nanyang Technological University sociologist Eddie Kuo said this was a cause for concern as it indicates a tendency of socio-economic classes being perpetuated. But he added: “You need to look more closely at whether elitist attitudes are due to school environment or family background, or both.”

Mirror on Armed, Online and Dangerous

What you are reading right now is an example of teenagers being armed, online and maybe a little dangerous. I could be flaming people on this blog, showing disdain for certain issues on this blog or I could even be insulting, maligning, slandering, vilifying and abusing you on this blog.

But guess what, I am not.

Basically, this article shows that teenagers have a whole arsenal of publishing software at their fingertips. True enough, these publishing softwares are so easy to obtain and use.

First on this list would be "YouTube". YouTube is free and easy to use, just needing you to film your videos and upload them. These videos can and will be seen by everyone with an internet connection. Broadcast yourself, they say as their slogan, and there are all these people that do so.

Next would be the example of online diaries. For example, http://www.blogger.com is free to use and it is so simple to use. Just write whatever you want to say in your post and post it. All formatting will be done in seconds. Other blogging websites such as wordpress also offer these kinds of services.

With youths being so tech savvy nowadays, there is nothing stopping them from going online and posting or uploading anything that they like. They are able to write their thoughts on their blogs with no problem at all. They know what people want to read and this results in perhaps viciousness on others on their blogs. They want people to acknowledge their thoughts and feelings. They have a need to feel wanted. It is both a privilege and a curse.

I would say only one thing to this problems - self-discipline. Yes, I agree with the article whole-heartedly. I agree that youths should be given their privilege to express themselves and be themselves once in a while. However, if these privileges are given to people who are unable to control themselves and they continue ranting and raving on their blogs, then I guess these privileges will have to stop.

For me, myself and I, I prefer a bit of privacy. I feel uneasy posting my thoughts online for others to read. I am not perfect and some people do get on my nerves once in a while. I do not want to lose control of my feelings and go ranting and raving on my blog about these people. This blog would not exist if it were not graded as an English assignment.

As cliche as it is, Uncle Ben from Spiderman once said, "With great power comes great responsibilty." This power of the information age, the internet, has been granted to us and it is only right that we learn to be responsible for what we do.

The pen, after all, is mightier than the sword.

Armed, Online and Dangerous?

Pub Date: 14/05/2007   Pub: ST              Page: 11
Day: Monday
Headline: ARMED, ONLINE AND DANGEROUS
By: ANDREW DUFFY
Source: SPH

THINKING
RACK YOUR BRAINS
BY SERENE GOH, THE SUNDAY TIMES, MAY 6
TEXT: ANDREW DUFFY
The new teen popularity contest is a frightening arms race. In cyberspace,
status is measured in numbers. The more hits, friends and cross-links you get,
the higher your social standing.

Teens aspiring towards greatness – or infamy – regard these markers in the same
way that broadcasters see viewership: the higher the ratings, the better.
In their arsenal for climbing the ranks are powerful weapons of mass
communication.

The average teenager today has more mobile and publishing software than a
newsroom of adult journalists had 10 years ago.

Yet they have no editors, no consensus, no contrary viewpoints – and, as a
result, perhaps a dysmorphic sense of right and wrong.

This past week, a teenager from Hillgrove Secondary School ranted on her blog
that her classmate “deserved to die”. She said that of Debra Wong, 14, a Secondary
3 student, who drowned two weeks ago in Sungei Pandan canal, because she was upset
with her.

Earlier in March, an eight-minute video clip of a teen bashing up another boy
at an HDB flat made it to video-hosting site YouTube. Then on April 17, a
42-second clip of eight youths beating up a victim did the same.

When it comes to harvesting online responses, that kind of cruelty works. The
more malignant the post, the bigger the crop of hits, the more popular you
become.

Any child of the digital age can tell you that, to catch his eye, a posting
must – maybe a little too literally – kick butt.

What rankles is the response of the few who do get found out: There is no
shame. They may make the sounds of regret because they have been caught, but that is
not remorse.

The Hillgrove teen, called “Tian Tian” in The New Paper, said: “When I wrote in
the blog, I did not consider Debra’s family’s feelings. Now I know I was
wrong.”

And what of the majority who are never punished? The YouTube beating from March
reportedly captured laughter in the background. The other received 3,000 views
in just a month.

Can such a hardened group be expected to understand their capacity for
destruction?

Why should they even think about the fallout of what they can do before they do
it, when they can do it all so fast?

Fifteen years ago, things were straightforward. Angry? Write in your diary.
Wronged? Make copies of a poison-pen letter for your classmates. Horny? Try for
a dodgy tryst in Geylang.

Any undertaking had clearly defined consequences: Your diary could get read,
you might spend a fortune on photocopies, you could get arrested or fined. With
few degrees of separation between deed and doer, any malice called for careful
orchestration and thought.

That precious process has since been obliterated. Today, it takes no time at
all for a teen to act on his feelings. Emboldened by online anonymity, he also
does not need to own up to his actions.

Canadian counselling hotline Kids Help Phone released a study called
“Cyber-bullying: Our Kids’ New Reality” which stated: “The cyber-bullying
victim can feel even more overwhelmed and powerless than in a traditional
bullying situation.”

Cyber-bullies use fake identities; they strike any time, anywhere; they also
execute “instant and limitless dissemination of words and images”, their
digital tools and cyber platform an easy means of exacting revenge.

That kind of access spells power – an absolute kind. And we all know what they
say about absolute power.

Teens in the Canadian study said that after bullying someone, they experienced
regret or ambivalence. But quite eerily, they also said it made them feel
“positive and powerful”. Perhaps, popular too.

The new teen popularity contest is a frightening arms race An arms race is
where two countries or groups build up more and more weapons, because they are
afraid that the other will attack them if they don’t have as many.

In the same way that broadcasters see viewership: the higher the ratings, the
better TV stations can charge advertisers more if their programmes have more
viewers, because then more people will see their advertisements.

Yet they have no editors, no consensus, no contrary viewpoints – and, as a
result, perhaps a dysmorphic sense of right and wrong Of course journalists
would say this, but editors do have a place. Last year, a book of blogs came
out, in which millions of blog pages were condensed (by editors) into a
268-page book. That suggests there is a lot of rubbish out there…Dysmorphic, by
the way, means shaped wrongly.

Three internal filters should stop this kind of stuff.
1) Realising that just because someone upsets you does not mean he deserves to
die.
2) Realising that even if you think he does, then you should keep quiet about
it. It makes you look bad.
3) Realising that even if you think he deserves to die and you want to shout
about it, don’t yell where his parents and friends will hear you.

There is another side to this. Teens have reportedly said that they behave
themselves better at parties because they know whatever they do will appear on
YouTube.

The more malignant the post, the bigger the crop of hits, the more popular you
become In that case, teens confuse popularity with infamy. To take an extreme
example, Cho Seung Hui, who shot 32 students at Virginia Tech in the United
States last month, has millions of hits on his name, but he could not be
described as “popular”.

Why should they even think about the fallout of what they can do before they do
it, when they can do it all so fast? This is one argument against guns in the
US – the gun-control lobby says so many are murdered because killing is so
easy, as guns are available. Same for any technology, from Google to ATMs to
copying CDs: if you make it easy, more people will use it.

Today, it takes no time at all for a teen to act on his feelings. Emboldened by
online anonymity, he also does not need to own up to his actions.
So fear of being caught stops people doing wrong, rather than knowing it is wrong
in the first place. It’s a tricky question: what stops anyone from theft, violence
or cheating? Is it fear of being caught or concern for others?

And we all know what they say about absolute power “Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.” English Lord Acton wrote that to a bishop
– in 1887! I prefer Spiderman, myself…

GST article!!!

Pub Date: 20/02/2007   Pub: ST              Page: 3
Day: Tuesday
Headline: All about the GST
By: ANDREW DUFFY

BIGATHOME
The five Ws and an H of the hike in Goods and Services Tax (GST). BY ANDREW
DUFFY

WHAT IS GST?
It is the tax we all pay on whatever we buy. Businesses pay it, and customers
pay it. Currently it adds 5 per cent to the cost of everything. In the Budget
last week, the Prime Minister announced that it would go up to 7 per cent.

WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE HIKE IN GST?
Everyone, but poorer people are more affected. This is for several reasons.
For example, poor people tend to earn less and thus have less savings because
most of what they earn goes to expenses. Therefore  as a percentage, more of
their income goes on GST.
That is why the Government wants to help them by giving out Workfare.
Workfare is  a cash bonus to poorer people, who are also working, to boost
their income to make up for the rise in prices caused by the GST hike.
WHY DO WE PAY GST?
A rise in GST will put $1.5 billion into the government coffers annually. That
means it can reduce the corporate tax rate – the amount businesses pay. And
that will attract more big businesses to set up or stay here, and boost the
economy as a whole – so more people should get richer. So it is needed for
Singapore to be globally competitive. Most countries are cutting corporate tax
rates, and raising “indirect” taxes like GST.

WHERE ELSE DO PEOPLE PAY GST?
It is more a question of where they do not. In Asia, for example, only Hong
Kong, Malaysia and tax-free Brunei have no GST. And in other countries it is
much higher. For example, in the United Kingdom it is 17.5 per cent. Plus it is
more complex there; for example, hot takeaway foods are taxed at 17.5 per cent,
but cold foods are not. Bread is considered cold, even if it is warm. That
makes things so complicated. Singapore has decided to have a more
straightforward GST on everything.

WHEN DID GST START IN SINGAPORE?
GST started in France in the 1940s. In Asia, it was introduced by South Korea
in 1976, followed by Taiwan and Indonesia in 1985. Singapore GST started in
April 1994, at 3 per cent. The rate was raised to 4 per cent in 2003 and 5 per
cent a year later. And this new hike would not be the last, as Singapore has to
adapt to stay competitive.

HOW WILL GST REVENUE BE SPENT?
It will allow Singapore to help its lower-income earners, plan for its ageing
population and invest in infrastructure like new roads and bridges. It will
also boost health care and education; the plan is that through education,
children from low-income homes will go on to higher-paying jobs.

GST!!!

There has been a proposed increase in the goods and services tax, from the initial 5% to 7% from the 1st of July.
And this is going to happen at one go, not in steps like the previous increase.
Although an increase of 2% does not seem much to us for the time being, we will be able to feel the effects of this increase in the long run. Just take a $100 purchase for example. There will be an increase in price of $2 with the increase of 2% in GST.
I feel that the worse part of this increase is the fact that it applies to everything, be it luxury items or daily necessities. Everyday spending will be affected and those families that cannot cope with this increase would be the hardest hit.
The government has increased the GST in order to reduce corporate tax. This was a measure done to attract companies to invest in Singapore. In doing so, they hope to develop Singapore's economy.
But doing this at the expense of Singaporeans? I do not agree.
However, the only suggestion that I have found to be more agreeable is to not increase the GST on essential goods (rice, salt, sugar, edible oil, soya sauce, vegetables, flour and fish). It is only logical, in my opinion, to instead increase the tax that people have to pay for luxury goods (such as shoes and bags). Why should the people of Singapore be taxed more for their daily needs?
Looking back at that suggestion, I find a major loophole. If these people are able to buy these luxury goods, nothing is stopping them from buying these goods from overseas where the tax is lower. After all, budget airlines do provide cheap air flights to nearby countries. The GST increase on these goods would therefore be redundant and the amount earned from the GST would not be enough for the government's social spending.
I think that the government's proposed offsets for this increase are fair in that sense for the time being. But the GST increase will be permanent and will not decrease. Singaporeans still will spend more than the offsets in the long run.
According to the article, everyone but the poorer people will be affected. I agree with this statement to a small extent. I feel that the rich will not be that affected as well as the increase would not be that significant to them. The people that would suffer most would be the middle class Singaporeans as their spending on necessities is a large percentage of what they earn.
With that, I end off with this. The government has put a lot of planning into the GST hike and there must be reasons for that. Whether or not I agree with these reasons, it is only my opinion, and there is nothing I can do about it. Well, we'll see how this hike affects Singapore then!

The ARTICLE

Pub Date: 09/02/2007   Pub: BT              Page: 1
Headline: Former NKF directors give up fight, concede to judgment
By: Michelle Quah
Corporation: National Kidney Foundation, NKF
[SINGAPORE] Former board members of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) have
thrown in the towel - admitting they breached their duties as directors - and
have now opened themselves up to millions of dollars of claims filed against
them by NKF's new board.
  After months of battle, a few days on the stand was all it took to persuade
former NKF chairman Richard Yong and his fellow defendants in a civil suit -
former NKF treasurer Loo Say San and former NKF board member Matilda Chua - to
give up their fight just as former NKF chief T T Durai did a month ago.
  All four had been sued by the new NKF board, headed by chairman Gerard Ee,
for $12 million damages - for improperly paid salaries and contract fees and
loss of donations, among other things. How much each defendant will have to pay
will be assessed at a damages hearing later.
  Until then, yesterday's admission by Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua is the
closest thing to victory for the new NKF board, which filed its suit in April.
  In a statement to the media, Mr Ee said NKF had to pursue the civil suit to
safeguard its reputation and integrity.
  'We are very pleased at this outcome and, in particular, at the speed with
which this has been achieved,' he said. 'The outcome helps vindicate the sense
of justice among Singaporeans.'
  The defendants' admissions yesterday came mid-way through what was expected
to be a two-month hearing in the High Court. Asked what prompted their move,
their lawyers declined to comment.
  But the new NKF board's representative, Senior Counsel K Shanmugam, said Mr
Yong's admissions on the stand in the past few days proved a turning point in
the case.
  Among other things, Mr Yong admitted he lied and breached his fiduciary duty
as a director.
  Mr Shanmugam said: 'I felt that, after two days of cross-examination, the
admissions by Mr Yong were quite damaging - and I could see at that point that
it would have been sensible for the defendants to have ended this hearing. That
admission of his breach of fiduciary duty was fatal.'
  Mr Shanmugam told reporters that following Monday's court session when Mr
Yong admitted breach of duty, he decided to call Mr Yong's lawyer Peter Low.
  'I felt I could make the point to him that there was no sense in continuing
this case,' Mr Shanmugam said. 'They thought about it, and consented.'
  Mr Shanmugam said that soon after, Ms Chua's lawyer Cheah Kok Lim got in
touch and expressed his view that Ms Chua should consent to judgment.
  Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua's climb-down echoes that by Mr Durai last month.
  NKF's former chief executive seemed prepared to defend claims against him,
but abruptly threw in the towel just two days after the hearing began -
immediately after Mr Shanmugam concluded his opening statement to the court.
  Now that all four defendants have consented to judgment, the amount each
will have to pay will be assessed at a separate hearing to be held within 12
months or so. They will each be assessed differently, based on their levels of
liability.
  'I can confirm at this point that Mr Yong faces more liability than Mr Durai
- he will bear the brunt of the claims,' Mr Shanmugam said. Mr Loo and Ms Chua
face a lower-level liability than Mr Yong or Mr Durai, he added.
  Mr Yong and Mr Loo will now continue to pursue their own claims against five
third parties. They earlier dragged four other former NKF directors and Mr
Durai into the civil suit, arguing that all directors were equally liable.
  Mr Yong and Mr Loo's other lawyer, Chia Boon Teck, told reporters yesterday
that even though his clients have settled their case with the new NKF board,
they will continue their claims against 'at least one of the third parties'. He
declined to say which party, but the indications are that Mr Yong and Mr Loo
will proceed against Alwyn Lim, who they named extensively in their defence.
  Lawyers for the third parties said yesterday they feel confident about their
respective cases - even more so after the defendants' consent to judgment
yesterday.
  The various parties will meet in Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon's
chambers at 4pm today to discuss how to proceed with the third-party claims.

 

Return of the NKF

After months of battle in court, the former directors of NKF have finally thrown in the towel, admitting their breach of duty as the directors of a well-known charitable organization.
But my concern today is not about their acknowledgement of their wrongs. Instead, I would like to reflect on the causes of their wrongdoing and the consequences of such a mistake.
I feel that main reason for their lack of integrity was purely based on the flaws of human nature. We all know that as imperfect human beings, there is always a chance for temptation, corruption etc. to overpower our conscience, leading to humans doing unimaginable things. Temptation caused the fall of man from the Garden of Eden.
And signs of temptation have or will never, now or in the future, cease to exist.
We put so much emphasis on integrity of the common man. Few people question the integrity of the leaders at the top of the ladder.
This NKF saga, in my opinion, would bring about a total change to that mindset for Singaporeans. Then again, I question the good that this change would bring. Would it be good for Singaporeans to live with no trust in anyone (of such charitable organizations for example) ever again? What good would it do for the people that actually needed the help that the organization "provides"?
Our society may well be a well-off one. However, there are still some people that are at the lower end of this balance. I have seen some of these cases. Old, lonely people, living in half-room flats in some obscure district of Singapore that many people definitely would not know about is just one example of such a imbalance.
Going back to the issue of NKF, we all know that dialysis is expensive and some people do need our help in sustaining their lives. Is the NKF saga going to change any mindsets of people? I think no. Looking at the initial uproar to this issue, many people felt cheated of their money and most likely felt inclined never to donate to such an organization every again. I know, because that was my first reaction to this situation. As a keen watcher of the NKF charity show almost every year, I have found myself donating countless times and who could forget the NKF cards that we had almost every year.
That was initially. Now after much of the reaction died down, I think that many people would have realized that there are many people that need our help.
This issue is not about the people involved, but how the people surrounding the issue react to it.
This issue is not going to change the way I feel about helping others.
Neither is it going to stop me from donating to the reformed NKF.