Blog Article 6: Guidelines for rehiring older workers ready in 2 years

Article 6:

Guidelines for rehiring older workers ready in 2 yrs: Manpower Minister
By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 25 August 2007 2014 hrs

SINGAPORE: The proposed law on rehiring older workers will be flexible in order to help companies reemploy those who turn 62, and the Ministry of Manpower said these guidelines should be ready within two years to spell out how employees are rehired.

Goh Kee Chai was offered a one-year renewable contract by MediaCorp Technologies when he turned 62; and for the 64-year-old, one of his many duties is to train younger broadcast engineers.

K Govindasamy, 62, was also rehired as senior executive at MediaCorp Technologies recently.

"I'm back at the old job but with many more responsibilities… I'm the honorary secretary of the recreational club. I'm a fire safety manager. I'm vice-chairman of the canteen committee. I'm also in the benefits sub-committee of management," he said.

According to Chan Yit Foon, MediaCorp’s executive vice-president for human resources, there are ten active retirees on the company’s payroll.

“Some of them are actually in the roles they were performing before, such as engineers, technicians. And some of them (are) in new roles... We actually have around 40 per cent of employees who are greater than 40 years of age. So in time to come, they will form a very natural pool of resources for us," she said.

Based on its business needs and the employee's preferences, MediaCorp also rehires older workers on short-term contracts of less than a year.

It is one of the many models the ministry will study before rolling out the reemployment law.

Manpower Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen pointed out, as different companies have different needs, and workers may also have their own preferences, the law should not be too rigid.

The guidelines will also include clear terms on how employees can be rehired, so “through self effort, (a worker) can be sure that he can be re-employed. Not necessary the same job, not necessary the same pay, but he knows that there will be a job.”

The law will also have a platform for disputes between workers and employers.

Full details will be worked out by the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers, chaired by Minister of State for Manpower Gan Kim Yong.

Personal Reflection 6:

This article states that the guidelines for rehiring older workers would be ready in two years, helping many more elderly workers to regain a job. Currently, the Tripartite Committee of Older Workers is testing out models of the policy. The general percepetion of this policy is a positive one, with many elderly workers under the experiment benefiting from it.

To me, this is indeed good news, not only to the individual, but also to the society in general.

With the average live span of a person increasing over the years, people can no longer retire at 55 and hope that the money he or she has saved will be enough to last him or her to the deathbed. Many people live beyond the age of 80 nowadays and 25 years is just too long a period of time. Also, the elderly usually have nothing to do. It is thus better to give them a job so that they can be kept occupied. This would indeed be much better than spending time at home doing nothing.

Also, the society would benefit from this policy. Singapore is facing the problem of an ageing society currently. This would heavily affect Singapore’s economy as more money would have to be used on caring for the elderly. However, if the elderly were to come out and work, burden that Singapore has on building more facilities or more homes for the elderly would lighten. Also, the elderly provide much valued experience and knowledge that would help in developing the young. This would give Singapore’s new economy a new dimension as we would have the vibrancy of the young as well as the experience of the elderly. I believe that this combination would make Singapore’s economy even more powerful.

Some concerns may be raised regarding the effectiveness of these elderly in their work. However, I feel that this is not such a large problem. What the elderly provide is the experience and knowledge which would be critical in decision making or in times of emergency. The young can compensate for the possible ineffectiveness of the elderly.

The only concern that I have is that two years may be too long a wait. I do understand that coming up with a policy is a hard thing to do, especially one that can be put in place in different companies that have different needs as well as different workers who have different preferences. However, I sincerely hope that the government can launch this policy as soon as possible because I believe that it would have a large and immediate impact on our economy.

Lastly, I would just like to add that I understand that I have my own limitations in discussing this topic. I have never experienced work. Therefore, I am assuming that the experience and knowledge that the elderly have will indeed help in our economy. However, I do believe that this policy would give Singapore a great boost in her economy, as well as in her people.

Blog Article 5: An Inconvenient Truth - A propaganda film?

Article 5:

The Truth about An Inconvenient Truth

Former Vice President Al Gore has long argued that human activities — primarily the burning of fossil fuels — are causing the Earth to warm significantly, with potentially catastrophic results. His most recent attempt to persuade the general public of his view is a movie and companion book entitled An Inconvenient Truth.

Most of the material in the movie is not new. It is largely based on a slide show Gore has given more than a thousand times to audiences around the world. Gore has persistently erred in his presentation of climate science for years; unfortunately, he has not taken this opportunity to correct his errors. The movie is filled with misstatements, half-truths and verbal sleights of hand concerning what we can and can't say with some level of certainty regarding the causes and consequences of climate change.

Is Tennessee Warmer? Gore says that since he was a child, he has seen the effects of global warming on his family farm. Inconveniently for Gore, however, any changes on his farm could not have been caused by global warming. According to National Climatic Data Center records, Tennessee has cooled by more than a half degree since Gore was born. Indeed, monthly temperature records show the state's warmest 30-year period since 1895 was 1925 to 1954.

Is Global Warming Causing the Snows of Kilimanjaro to Melt? Early in the film, Al Gore shows some powerful photographs of the diminishing snow-pack on Kenya's Mount Kilimanjaro, implying that human-induced warming is the cause. The snows of Kilimanjaro are retreating, but according to studies in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research, the retreat began in the late 19th century — before most human greenhouse gases were emitted. It is largely due to the decline in precipitation (snowfall) on the mountain as a result of the clearing and burning of the rainforests at its base for agriculture. Precipitation is also declining in parts of the Amazon as the rainforests are cleared. Thus, while humans are to blame for the retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers, global warming is not.

Will Melting Polar Ice Sheets Cause Flooding of Coastal Cities? Gore uses stunning computer-generated images to show what would happen to the world's coastal areas if the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets melted. Sea levels would rise by as much as 40 feet, radically changing coastlines and creating many refugees.

What Gore doesn't say about the threat to the ice sheets is as important as what he does say, however. Ice and snow is accumulating in the interior of Greenland and Antarctica, but decreasing around the edges. A 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology by a NASA scientist concludes that there is a net loss of ice that will result in higher sea levels. But the loss is occurring slowly: 0.05 millimeters on average per year. At that rate, it will take a millennium for the oceans to rise 5 centimeters (roughly 2 inches) and 20,000 years to rise a full meter.

More recent research indicates that the pace of melting has increased. But even under the worst case it would take at least several centuries — 1,800 years by one calculation — for the scenario painted in the movie to play out, giving humans a considerable amount of time to adapt.

Do All Scientists Agree? Gore says "the debate is over," "the science is settled," and "scientists agree," humans are causing global warming. The most telling piece of evidence for Gore is a study in the journal Science by Naomi Oreskes, professor at University of California at San Diego. Oreskes searched the Institute for Scientific Information database for 1993 to 2003 studies dealing with global climate change. She analyzed 928 abstracts, 25 percent of which did not mention human influence. According to Oreskes, 100 percent of the studies that addressed human influence on current climate trends either explicitly or implicitly endorse the view that humans are to blame for the current warming.

Researchers who tried to replicate Oreskes findings came up with quite different results. Searching the same database using the same keywords, Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, found 1,117 peer reviewed publications with abstracts. In contrast to Oreskes, he found that:

• Nearly three times as many studies (3 percent) either rejected or doubted that humans are a cause of the current warming as those that explicitly endorsed the "consensus view" that humans are causing warming (1 percent).
• Another 29 percent implicitly accepted the consensus view, but most focused on the projected impacts of climate change rather than its causes.
• Two-thirds of all of the studies either made no mention of human influence or dealt with methodological issues, possible responses to climate change or natural factors that contribute to it.

Scientists Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray — both of whom accept the consensus view — surveyed their fellow climate scientists worldwide in 2003. They asked, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [human] causes?" Of the 530 responses, a majority (55.8 percent) indicated moderate to strong support for the consensus view, while 30 percent indicated varying degrees of skepticism. [See the figure.] The number of scientists who strongly disagreed with the consensus view (10 percent) outnumbered those who most strongly supported it (9 percent).

Contrary to Gore's claims, 55.8 percent is hardly as strong a consensus as science ever produces about a theory.

No Inconvenient Solutions. Gore says global warming is the most serious threat ever to face human civilization. So what should we do about it? Surprisingly, Gore's list of remedies is so meek and mild they are unlikely to offend a single significant voter group. He does not call for a higher gasoline tax or any other tax on fossil fuel. He does not endorse gasoline rationing, mandatory no-drive days or banning SUVs and stockcar races. He does pay lip service to the idea that the United States should limit carbon emissions as called for by the Kyoto Protocol, but nowhere does he mention that doing so might lower anyone's (any voter's) wages or cause any inconvenience whatsoever.

Furthermore, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, if all of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol met their greenhouse-gas reduction targets, the Earth would at most be 0.07 degrees Celsius to 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler than without Kyoto. Most analysts argue that it would take multiple Kyotos to substantially reduce future warming. Yet on this "consensus" Gore is amazingly silent.

Conclusion. The Christian Science Monitor coined a new term to describe An Inconvenient Truth and films like it: the "docu-ganda." Docu-gandas differ from documentaries in that the goal of the filmmaker is to influence rather than inform. One media expert interviewed by the Monitor argued that marketing such films as documentaries could be "dangerous if viewers take everything they are saying as the whole truth." A second expert noted that "the danger of the advocacy documentary is that things might be being kept from you…."

Personal Reflection 5:

This article aimed to show how Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was a propaganda film which contained much inconsistency. It showed how some evidences for Global Warming was actually false and that the film was made to “influence” rather than to “inform”.

To me, having watched the film itself, I would like to discuss whether propaganda films have their place in society.

Propaganda films are characterized to be a mix of some truth and some untruth. In other words, such films only present one side of the story. Evidences which contradict the film’s stand may be kept from the reader.

Let us first assume that An Inconvenient Truth is indeed a propaganda film (it would take much longer to argue whether or not the evidences are true). Does it make the film unwatchable? Does it make the film irrelevant? To me, this is not true.

Propaganda films do have their place in society. In fact, many films have propaganda material; the only difference is how controversial they are. The main aim of An Inconvenient Truth was to make people believe that Global Warming was imminent and dangerous. In order to make people believe in what really is happening, one has to emphasize on one side of the story. If one does not, he will either contradict himself, or, at the very least, make himself sound unconvincing. That would ultimately defeat the purpose of the film.

Therefore, I can really empathize with Gore. His film has come under heavy criticism recently for showing false evidence but I feel that this is all for the good of the society. It is a wake up call for the society. It was a movie to make the World aware of the problem. And the movie succeeded in doing all these. The very fact that people are arguing whether it is a propaganda film shows that many people have watched the film and have become aware of Global Warming. Therefore, I feel that it is not Gore’s fault at all.

However, propaganda films do have their limits. The ignorance of certain details should be kept to as minimal as possible. Also, the ultimate goal of all these must have a positive outcome. Some people have compared Gore’s film with Hitler’s way of showing how Jews should be blamed.

However, I think that these are two totally different issues we are talking about. Hitler had bad intentions to his propaganda talk. He wanted to make Germany hate the Jews. However, Gore had a positive intention to make the World aware of a danger. Thus, Gore’s film is still acceptable in such conditions.

I do know that I am in no position to discuss this topic. This is the very first time I am studying on propaganda films. Therefore, I have little knowledge regarding this topic. However, I hope that I have given another viewpoint to this debate. I do believe that propaganda films, if properly used, can still be useful in our present society.

Article 4:
Calculators to be allowed for Primary 5 & 6 maths exams

This will start in 2008, in line with the revised syllabuses.

Apr 27, 2007
AsiaOne

Primary 5 and 6 students will be allowed to use calculators for their maths exams, as part of the revised syllabuses to enhance the teaching and learning of the subject at the primary level.

Calculators will be introduced at Primary 5 in 2008 and Primary 6 in 2009, said a joint statement from the Ministry of Education and Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) today.

To align assessment with the curriculum, calculators will be allowed for Paper 2 of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) mathematics and foundation mathematics examinations from 2009. These exams will be revised from the current single paper to a two-paper format from 2009.

On allowing the use of calculators, the statement said: "The introduction of calculators at Primary 5 and 6 aims to enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics at the primary level in two ways.

"First, calculators facilitate the use of more exploratory approaches in learning mathematical concepts, some of which may require repeated computations, or computations with large numbers or decimals. With a calculator, pupils can perform these tasks and better focus on discovering patterns and making generalisations without worrying about computational accuracy.

"Second, the use of calculators also enables teachers to use resources from everyday life, such as supermarket advertisements, to set real-life problems with real-life numbers that may be difficult for pupils to work with without a calculator. Pupils would hence be better able to see the connection between mathematics and the world around them."

To equip teachers with the knowledge and skills in integrating calculators into the primary maths curriculum, workshops have been conducted since 2006. By the end of this year, all Primary 6 and 6 teachers would have been trained, said the Ministry.

The new textbooks for these students, and the teaching and learning resources provided to schools, will also reflect the use of calculators in the syllabus.

Stressing the importance of developing basic numeracy skills, including mental computation and estimation, early in students, the statement said these life skills will continue to be taught and will remain relevant even as computers and calculators become more accessible.

"Even with the introduction of calculators... pupils will continue to learn, practise and assessed on computational skills without the use of a calculator," said the statement.

On the revised PSLE format from 2009, the ministry says Paper 1 does not allow the use of a calculator so that important computational skills will continue to be emphasised and be assessed. But calculators will be allowed in Paper 2 to solve problems.

"The calculator is a tool to help pupils with their computations. There will be no change in the question types, the number of questions for each type, or the level of difficulty of the questions," said the statement.

Only calculators approved by the SEAB will be allowed for use in examinations. The list of approved calculators, which can be used at the secondary level, is available on the SEAB website http://www.seab.gov.sg/.

The use of calculators was one of the recommendations made by a review committee, which comprised academics and practitioners, in 2004.

Personal Response 4:
This news came as a shock to me. Introduction of the use of calculators has never been done before secondary school education and indeed I did not touch a calculator till I completed my PSLE. This change of policy is very significant as the standard of Math in Singapore could go to both extremes with the implementation of it. Those who can cope with the commands of this policy will be able to benefit while those who are unable to will suffer from it.

When I first saw this article, I pondered over the need for this policy. This policy seems to be suggesting that the primary school students nowadays are getting better, and it is suitable to introduce the use of the calculator at an earlier stage. However, are we ignoring the fundamentals? Math is a very practical subject; you either know it or you don’t. It is critical to have strong fundamental skills. Without the use of calculators, we can train students to calculate independently and confidently. It is only with such skills can we begin to learn more advanced stuff.

However, just like in any other policy, there has to be advantages.

Firstly, we can now introduce real-life usage of math. Calculations in the real-world are usually tedious and the numbers that are used are usually not very friendly. With the introduction of the calculator, students can start to use Mathematics in his everyday world and understand how they are inter-related. I feel that this is very important especially in our modern-day world where practicality is the key to success. No point being a genius without helping the society in any way. There is a common misconception that Math is useless but that is not true. Math is being used in many ways. In science, there are calculations. In economics, there are calculations. Even in architecture, design and engineering, calculations are also involved. Therefore, to teach Math in a practical way rather than a theoretical way would aid the students in linking Math to the world.

Also, introducing calculators will reduce certain uncertainty in answers which have been present for quite a long time. Even I myself have faced this problem before. Whenever I solve a problem, I expect the answer to be a whole number or at least one with a small fraction. If not, I would doubt whether I got the correct answer and begin to think that my calculations have been wrong. This is yet another misconception as in Math, especially in real-life, there are many cases where the numbers are just not nice but they are still correct.

However, I do know my limitations in discussing this topic. Although I am a student and I have experienced PSLE first-hand, I have had no experience whatsoever in educating. I do know the big picture of how math teachers tend to teach, but as for the details, I am rather doubtful. Therefore, I admit that I am in no position to criticize this policy.

Blog Article 3: Political

Article 3:
Singapore PM to freeze his pay for 5 years, donate pay hikes

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says he will hold his own salary at the present level for five years and will donate any increases in his salary during that period.

He made the announcement in Parliament on Wednesday, as the House continues its debate on salary revisions for government ministers and civil servants.

Mr Lee said making a large adjustment in public sector salaries now is politically a most difficult decision.

But it is something that must be done.

While it is very difficult to get people to understand and emotionally accept it, he said the issue is absolutely critical.

"If we do not tackle it now, the problem will not go away; it will just get worse - we will be in serious trouble," he said.

After discussing it at length in Cabinet, and with Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in particular strongly encouraging him to do it, PM Lee decided to move now because of the overriding importance of keeping public sector salaries competitive.

The Prime Minister said that to make clear why he is doing this, and to give him the moral standing to defend this policy to Singaporeans, he will hold his own salary at its present level for five years.

The Government will pay him his full pay, because that is how the system must work.

But for five years, he will donate the increase in his salary from this and subsequent revisions.

Mr Lee said he does not expect other Ministers to follow.

While it is a Cabinet decision, he told Parliament, he is carrying the ultimate responsibility, not them.

So what the individual Ministers and MPs do is up to them.

Mr Lee said that he knows they already support various worthy causes.

It should not be a public ostentatious display of how generous they are, but a private matter for them to decide at their own discretion, he said.

Mr Lee told the House that the issue is not just about salaries of Ministers and civil servants.

It is about Singapore's future - how it can produce the best government to secure a bright future for the people.

He explained that a strong political leadership and effective government will not happen automatically or by chance.

It only happens through a deliberate, systematic process to build the team and to bring in talent.

But it did not start out like that.

Minister Mentor Lee and the first generation of leaders went out systematically building a successor team.

This approach worked with a second generation of leaders, and now a third.

Citing examples like NEWater, which turns a strategic vulnerability into a competitive advantage, education, and a clean and non-corrupt government, Mr Lee said that Singapore's system of government has delivered results.

To sustain the system, the country must build the strongest possible team in Cabinet and government to govern and serve Singaporeans now and into the future.

He told Parliament that building the next team is his most important task.

Citing the example of Law Minister Professor Jayakumar, who is now 67, Mr Lee said he must have a successor ready by 2011.

The Prime Minister himself is 55.

So he must find and bring in a whole team of new MPs and political office-holders.

Mr Lee said that he wants to be able to assemble together the best possible group of young persons, who are now in their late 30s or early 40s, so they can offer Singaporeans the best choice.

10 years from now, one of them should be ready to take over as PM.

One key requirement, Mr Lee said, is to pay people properly.

He stressed that while the government does not expect Ministers to earn as much as the top earners in the private sector, it must not be too far out of line from what a person of similar ability can earn outside.

He also explained that the formula for benchmarking public sector salaries to the private sector is basically sound.

Mr Lee did not agree to a suggestion to delegate the responsibility of deciding Ministers' pay to an independent pay commission.

He said this will not settle the matter as finally, the responsibility lies with the political leadership.

It is accountable to Parliament and to all Singaporeans, who will have to judge and decide whether it has done the right thing.

To comments by opposition member Low Thia Khiang, he asked the Workers' Party chief to produce his line-up of Ministers and say how much he intends to pay them.

While Mr Lee conceded that his present team is not perfect, he said every Minister is worth his pay, and by paying properly, the team can be improved and strengthened.

Other countries also face similar problems over the pay of political leaders.

Some try to benchmark public sector salaries to the private sector, but have not succeeded.

Mr Lee acknowledged that despite all the arguments, the policy is not easy for people to accept.

The income gap is widening and although the economy is doing well, some people still face difficulties.

Mr Lee also agreed that it is not a good time for a salary revision when the GST has just been raised and not everything is rosy in the economy.

He said he had considered waiting one year, but the problem is urgent.

Since the last adjustment in 2000, private sector incomes have surged ahead.

Waiting one year would mean having to make a bigger move.

Meanwhile, the government will lose people.

Hence it must move now.

Also, it must keep on adjusting as the private sector moves.

Mr Lee made clear this policy is for the future, against the backdrop of the new globalised Asia.

He said the test is not whether these Ministers will leave, but whether there will be good Ministers in Singapore in 10, 20 years' time.

The Prime Minister said he is convinced the government has made the right decision.

Personal Response 3:
The issue of increasing the minister’s pay has been a controversial issue in recent times.

Money has always been a big problem in modern society. How do we determine a job’s salary? What is deemed as a low salary? What is deemed as a fair pay? Is salary really necessary for the attraction of people to a certain job?

When I first read this article, I was outraged. The ministers were already being paid such a high sum of money. Was it insufficient? I firmly believe that it is not necessary. A person should choose a job because of his passion for it, not because of the high salary that can be gained from it. This policy seems to be sending out the wrong message to the people. It is telling the people to come work for the government because of the high amount of salary that one will get, not because of the love for the country. It seems that the policy will only result in a group of naïve people governing the country. I seriously doubt that this will be of any help to the progress of Singapore, whether it is in our economy, society or even politics.

However, I do understand why PM Lee has come up with this initiative. It does seem that we are grooming a group of impassionate people to govern the country. However, not increasing the pay of the ministers could result in an even worse situation. It requires much knowledge, talent, empathy and many other gifts to make a good politician. Not everyone or anyone can be a politician. As a country with limited natural resources, human resource is critical and this includes having talented leaders with foresight to see us through the 21st century and beyond. Rising competition from our economic rivals will give Singapore many problems in the new future and having these talented leaders to guide us through these times of hardship is important.

Here, we are trying to make a balance of having talented and passionate individuals; assumption being talented people will go for high-paying jobs and passionate people going for jobs that they are interested in. Indeed, it is difficult to tie in both factors simultaneously and achieve equilibrium. In that sense, I agree too that talented people are required to run a country. It is this talent that will most probably lead us to the right decisions and it is also this talent that will most probably guide Singapore on route to success.

I also understand that I have my own limitations in discussing this problem. I am not an expert in this field, nor do I fully understand the concept of money. As the saying goes, “money makes the world go round”. I have had no experience at all working and I have never understood the difficulty in the art of money-earning. Therefore, I admit that I am in no position to criticize the minister’s decision.

Blog article 2: Environment

Article 2:
Global Warming "Very Likely" Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say

John Roach
For National Geographic News

February 2, 2007

Global warming is here, it's human-caused, and it will continue for centuries even if greenhouse-gas emissions are stabilized, an international panel of climate experts said in a report issued today.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used its strongest language yet to link human activity to Earth's warming temperatures, rising seas, more intense storms, and a host of other environmental maladies.

"Fossil fuel use, agriculture, and land-use change are fundamentally affecting the systems on our planet," Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said at a press briefing in Paris, France.

The United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization oversee the IPCC.

Hundreds of climate experts and government representatives from 113 countries labored all week in Paris to reach unanimous agreement on the wording of each sentence in the 20-page summary for policymakers.

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations," the report reads.

"Very Likely" a Big Step

The phrase "very likely" translates to a 90 percent probability, the report's authors note. This is a significant departure from previous reports.

In 2001 the panel concluded humans were "likely," or with 66 percent probability, the cause of global warming. The panel also released reports in 1995 and 1990.

"Each time they've used a more explicit statement about the human contribution," said Henry Jacoby, co-director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a phone interview Thursday.

Jacoby, who studies the threat of global climate change, said the report will cause some people to "be somewhat more concerned" but doubted it would be "revolutionary" in spurring action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Report Highlights

The report assesses the research of hundreds of climate scientists from more than 130 countries. It summarizes the current state of climate science including causes, observed changes, and projections for the future.

The full report will be released later this year. In coming months, the panel will also release chapters on global warming's threats and how to combat climate change.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, said at the briefing that the report's broad participation gives it "the stamp of acceptance of all the governments of the world … that really provides the credibility of this massive scientific undertaking."

Among the findings in the summary report:

• Global temperatures will increase between 2 and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century over pre-industrial levels.

• A best-guess temperature rise is between 3.2 and 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius), though the high end remains possible.

• Sea levels are projected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century.

• If recent melting in Greenland and Antarctica continues, sea levels could rise an additional 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).

• Temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise for centuries even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized today.

• Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record, which stretches back to 1850.

• Observational evidence suggests an increase in hurricane strength in the North Atlantic since 1970 that correlates with an increase in sea surface temperatures.

• In some projections, Arctic sea ice will disappear in the late summer by the later part of this century.

• It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy rains will continue to become more frequent.

• The Gulf Stream, which brings warm waters to the North Atlantic, may slow but is unlikely to shut down as depicted in the Hollywood disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

What to Do?

MIT's Jacoby said today's report demonstrates the reality of global climate change but does "not have any very great guidance on what will be the right thing to do."

Susan Solomon, a U.S. government scientist and co-chair of the group that produced the IPCC report, noted at the briefing that deciding what to do is a job for societies, not scientists.

"In my view, that is what IPCC also is all about, namely not trying to make policy-prescriptive statements but policy-relevant statements," she said.

Daniel Sarewitz is the director of Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. He said the proper reaction to the IPCC report requires looking at climate change in the context of global environmental change.

For example, he said, rapid population growth along the coasts is the greatest cause of losses from hurricanes over the past century, not warming.

Fixing the problem, therefore, requires better coastal management in addition to reducing greenhouse gases.

"The major flaw of the IPCC is that it reinforces the tendency to view climate impacts in such narrow terms," he said by email on Thursday.

Pachauri, the IPCC chair, said he is hopeful that society will use the information in the report to make decisions that "reduce the risks and dangers that might exist in the future."

Personal Response 2:
Global Warming has always been a problem. Problems resulting from Global Warming include increased chances of natural disasters and rising temperatures. In this essay, I am unable to list down the steps needed for the prevention of global warming. Neither can I elaborate on the impacts of Global Warming. I do not have such expertise in this area. Instead, what I will try to do is to answer the question: why did Global Warming occur?

One can say that Global Warming is inevitable given our current industrialized world. To me, however, it is more than just industrialization. Of course, it is undeniable that there is a correlation between industrialization and Global Warming. However, I feel that it is the psychological mindset of men that really is the problem.

Ever since Science first started to take shape, people have wondered the applications of Science. A usual answer would be to benefit society. I totally agree with this statement. Indeed, we investigate things for us to lead better lives.

The question now is the definition of “benefit”. Every matter has two sides of the story. This is also the case for Global Warming. Would we rather lead better lives now and allow our later generations suffer from natural disasters, diseases and more? Would we rather have comfortable naps with air-conditioners now and have people dying of heat in the future? Is that our definition of “benefit[ing] society”?

If your answer to the last question is yes, you have one of two problems. Both problems involve the psychological mindset. Firstly, you are selfish. If I ask another question: would you rather let your son drown in the water or risk your life to save him, you would probably have saved your son. The concept of Global Warming is the same. The only difference is that you don’t recognize the people in the future who are going to suffer because of your selfishness. Your later generation is going to suffer because you didn’t spare a thought for them.

Secondly, you are short-sighted. You only care about the current situation. You aren’t bothered with what happens in the future. A simpler question for you could be: if you know you are going to die of cancer a month later, would you go seek help? You would answer yes. The same concept goes for Global Warming. The only difference is that the time frame is relatively longer.

Therefore, I conclude that Global Warming is not a consequence of Science. Rather, it is men’s wrong psychological mindset. It is our selfishness, our short-sightedness, our inability to define “benefit” that led to Global Warming. As we stubbornly follow the steps needed to prevent Global Warming, as we relax with the air-conditioners on, let us first think of ourselves. For our selfishness, our short-sightedness, our mindset is about to become the most dangerous weapon ever created. It is about to turn us into the most vicious, the most unforgiving and the most merciless of murderers of all time...

Blog article 1: Current Affairs

Article 1:

THE rapid transformation of Singapore into a global city with a large influx of foreigners has resulted in social disruptions, but a feared upsurge in crime is not one of them.

This is one of the better stories to emerge from this rapidly changing country and its fast-rising population in recent years.

Newsweek last week succinctly asked a question that is in the mind of many people: “The island's economy is booming. So why are so many citizens worse off than they were 10 years ago?”

The cause is a rising level of poverty and a stagnating middle class income in the past five years – while costs have gone up – all of which had raised fears that crime would dramatically worsen.

Besides, new technology today allows crooks from abroad to cheat the unwary without even setting foot here.

Well, miraculously it hasn’t happened.

In fact, the latest police statistics showed a significant 10% decline in crime in 2006, with cases falling from 37,093 (in 2005) to 33,393.

They covered all index crimes, especially rioting, housebreaking, robbery and cheating as well as car theft, most of which are usually associated with poverty.

Even mobile phone crimes, the 21st century curse, fell. Youth offences, which account for one-fifth of the total, dropped by 30%.

Singapore’s pattern of crime has been changing in the past 20 years in tandem with the rise in education, wealth and new technology.

But as criminals became worldly-wise, the trend has ostensibly moved from violent offences, which bring less money and stronger punishment, to more profitable white-collar crimes.

They include fraud, product piracy, deception, commercial scams, computer offences, and bribery.

There are fewer hard drug offenders, secret society members (replaced by teenage gangs) and robbery syndicates which used to operate in large numbers during the less developed era.

Today the crooks are more likely to be suit-wearing CEOs and directors, lawyers, bankers or computer experts who dine in five-star hotels and travel first-class.

According to the latest statistics, computer crimes (unheard of 20 years ago) now number about 60 a year.

A new breed of white-collar criminals has been grabbing world headlines in recent years, stirring its very core tenet of protecting investors’ interests.

One of Singapore’s selling points has been its low-crime, stable environment for businessmen and citizens.

Recent instances of misuse of funds amounting to tens of millions of dollars by CEOs of charity bodies have dealt corporate image and trust a serious blow.

Some mega-frauds include the following:

·Singapore Airlines supervisor Toe Cheng Kyat embezzled some S$35mil (RM80.5mil) from his company. He was sentenced to 24 years' jail;

·A bigger cheat, casino high-roller Chia Teck Leng, an executive of Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) was found guilty of cheating four banks, siphoning off a staggering A$190mil (RM513mil). His crime spree spread over four years;

·Next Kwek Chee Tong, 53, former managing director of public-listed Kian Ho Bearings, got nine years' jail for misappropriating more than S$5mil (RM11.5mil) of company money;

·In 2004 China Aviation Oil (CAO) chief executive Chen Jiulin was sentenced to 51 months' jail in connection with the company’s US$550mil (RM1.9bil) trading scandal; and

·Earlier, Nick Leeson, a 28-year-old derivatives trader at the Singapore office of Barings PLC, Britain’s oldest merchant bank, lost over US$1.4bil (RM4.9bil) betting on Nikkei futures. It wiped out the bank's equity capital.

Not all white-collar thieves are managers or the well-heeled; the majority, in fact, are ordinary employees like clerks, IT workers or bank employees who have something in common, the trust of the company.

Some time ago, for example, a secretary was convicted of forging more than 70 cheques totalling S$1.5mil (RM3.45mil) over two years and was jailed six-and-a-half years.

This trend indicates that, unlike many developing countries, the crime motivation in Singapore has more to do with human greed than poverty. But it also marks a decline in moral standards.

Secondly, the influx of foreigners has had an impact on crime since they caused 19% of it, but this was less than popularly believed. Foreigners make up 28% of the population.

Singapore has always taken a tough punitive stand on the belief that crime and the ambition to be a global hub cannot live side by side.

So has the spate of major commercial cases cut business trust?

In a 2005 global survey, international PricewaterhouseCoopers looked into the impact of rising commercial crime on international business confidence, and has a section on Singapore.

“Fraud (is) a significant and growing threat worldwide,” the survey said in a synopsis.

The survey found that 45% (2003: 37%) of international companies reported having suffered fraud in the last two years. The number of victim companies rose by 22% since 2003.

Singapore was in better shape, with only 16% of companies surveyed reporting having fallen victim – compared with 39% region-wide.

The republic saw a sharp 50% decline in the number of victim firms; two years ago it was 32%.

Although the numbers are down, the survey found the republic recording the biggest frauds (in money terms) than most countries in the world, on a per capita basis.

“The average cost of economic crime in Singapore was US$4mil (RM14mil), significantly higher than the global and regional averages of US$1.7mil (RM5.95mil) and US$1.6mil (RM5.6mil),” said the global professional services firm.

With the proposed large foreign influx, the future could change when its population reaches seven million in 20 years.

And the social impact of becoming a casino city remains uncertain.

(This was first published in The Star on Jan 26, 2007)

Personal Response 1
Crime in today’s context is very different from that of the past. With higher education, criminals can now outsmart the police. Robberies are a thing of the past. Violence is disappearing from the “crime scene”. Replacing these “outdated” crimes are crimes which involve technology and psychology.

The first question we have to ask ourselves is why the change? This is a hard question to answer, especially with my inexperience and lack of knowledge in this field. However, in my opinion, there are three possible answers to this question.

Firstly, the chances of being caught in such cases are much lower than those which are physical. Firstly, there are fewer clues such as fingerprints left behind. With new technology, criminals can commit crimes miles away from the actual crime scene. A simple click of the mouse does the job. For cases involving psychology, people usually know the criminals but are too embarrassed to report them. In these cases, the criminals make use of men’s weak and vulnerable psychological mindset.

Secondly, the yield that one gets from such crimes is relatively higher. A thief can only steal things of certain amount and of certain size. You don’t see thieves stealing a television set. Neither do you see thieves stealing twenty hand phones in a single attempt. The usage of technology, however, can help remove these restrictions. One can now send a “time bomb” virus and wait for it to spread being activating it. Criminals can then steal the passwords or information from many people in one attempt. Thus, the yields are relatively higher. For psychological crimes, yields are higher as the threat posed by it is continuous. If X threatens Y with something that is very important for Y unless Y pays up, X can keep threatening Y for more money with the same thing. In other words, the threat is continuous and the yield can be seen as never ending.

Thirdly, criminals also get lighter punishments for such crimes. With less usage of physical contact, the punishments become lighter. There is a correlation between violence and the intensity of the punishment in the law currently. In this sense, these criminals get lighter punishments.

Therefore, the next question to be asked is on prevention of such crimes. The first way is education. This can be done on the social and family basis. People can be educated on web safety such as not to click on unknown links. The second way is law. With crimes changing, laws have to change too. The punishments for technology and psychological crimes have to be heavier. This will prevent people from committing such crimes. Of course, we can also strengthen the police force and make them trained in areas like technology, teach them ways to track down people who commit crimes involving technology.

There is change everywhere and anywhere, every time and anytime. The only way to solve changes is to liquefy ourselves and change with the changes. Only in this way can new crimes be prevented.