reflection on forum--by Eric

Original Website: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483956.html

Jan 30, 2010

Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk

I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza's response on Wednesday, 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.

The term 'Web defacement', or rather the defacing of a webpage, has a completely different meaning. Web defacement is an attack on a website, typically by system hackers, who replace the website they attack with one of their own. Web defacement is illegal and carries a potential prison sentence.

'Keyboard warrior' was a term forged in the Internet age to describe someone who expresses his feelings (mostly anger), thoughts and beliefs online.

On top of this, the cyber warriors who are the main target of Mr Tan do not frequent websites. They are commonly found on online forums and chatrooms, and their very existence is to exchange views and voice thoughts, be they coherent or not.

I am not sure if Mr Tan knows the expression, but I am sure Mr De Souza is familiar with the term 'coffee shop talk', a term coined long ago to describe political comments made over coffee in traditional coffee shops.

Now in the modern age, we should understand we have the tools to express ourselves on a more powerful platform, that of the Internet, and comments will cover the whole spectrum and may even be of an extreme nature.

Having said that, it saddened me that Mr Tan took something that is fundamental to human rights and the human condition - to express one's unhappiness - and somehow married that to Web defacement, a criminal activity. This makes me wonder if it is such a heinous crime in Mr Tan's eyes to express unhappiness with government policies that it is now comparable to a criminal offence.

What is even more worrying is that Mr De Souza, a known security expert, states that keyboard warriors are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when they are not. In fact, extremists have been snuffed out and tried in court, so there is no anonymity and everyone is and will be held accountable for what he says.

Chai Shiew Chee

I REFER to the letter by Chai Shiew Chee 'Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk' on saturday. According to Chai Shiew Chee, the people who express their ideas and thoughts including all the positive and negetive ones on the internet should not be treated as kinds of criminal activities. She insists that the right of expressing their thoughts should always be protected here in Singapore. She thought the original letter's author, Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists' should not treat the foundamental human right of expressing their ideas as the criminal activity.
I AGREE with Ms Chai's idea about this. I think to say whatever you want is a basic human right that protected by the law of constitution in Singapore and even all the modern countries all over the world. If you treat those people as a kind of 'web defacement' and forbid them to speak online, the freedom of speaking will no longer have the meaning that it should have. This is a common sense of all the Internet users around the world. But as a precondition of speaking online, what you want to say should obey the law of the residence country. You should not say whatever you want online and that may cause a very bad panic and maybe other bad results on the internet. In conclusion, there should be a restrict line of the content of what you are about to say. This will make you a 'keyboard warrior' instead of a 'web defacement'.

posted by Eric

Subsidies, tax reliefs should apply to family unit as a whole--Ryan

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang, 'Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too', on the subsidies to be enjoyed by full-time mothers.

I was once a working mother and my husband and I shared the responsibilities of bringing home income as well as caring for our first child after he was born.

We used to take leave in turns to care for our child as and when the need arose - and with young children, needs arise more often than not.

I have since decided to become a full-time mother. This way, my husband can concentrate his energies on his work so that as a family unit, we can better manage our childcare and financial needs.

Indeed, this decision has paid off for our family because my husband can focus on his work - and keep his job in these difficult times or gun for a promotion when the economy recovers - and I can concentrate on taking care of my first child, and having a second one.

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time - in view of the numerous letters by others on the same issue - that tax rebates and reliefs do not encourage full-time mothers who gave up our jobs so we can contribute to increasing the birth rate or our husbands can increase economic productivity.

On top of childcare subsidies that are not extended to full-time mothers, a large part of the tax savings is in working mother child relief that is available to the family unit as a whole - only if the mother is working. With policies like these, there is no doubt the authorities are trying to encourage women to work. However, perhaps they should look at the bigger picture and see how economic productivity and birth rates can both be increased by rewarding the family unit as a whole.

I appeal to the authorities to convert it to a working PARENT child relief or working PARENT childcare subsidy so those of us who have chosen - perhaps temporarily - to put our careers on hold for the sake of childbirth and family do not feel left out.

Since working mother child relief is calculated as a percentage of income, implementing this as working parent relief may encourage households with higher single incomes to have more children, so increasing the birth rate.

Tan Su Ling (Madam)

I refer today’s forum ‘Subsidies, tax reliefs should apply to family unit as a whole’, by Tan Su Ling (Madam) who suggests that the subsidies should be given to the whole family instead of the working mother. She told us that she gave up her job to take care of her first child. The whole family benefited from this decision because she can manage all her time to her kid and the finial for the whole family while her husband can concentrate all his energies in working. She noticed that the government and authorities’ policies aim to encourage women to work, and they can give the working mother subsidies. Ms. Tan appealed to the authorities to change the policies to give the full-time mothers who are dedicating all their time to their children subsidies. As a result, it can encourage families to have more children.

By Tan Su Ling (Madam), she used her story to show the benefit bought to family as she to be the full-time mother, and she appeal to get subsidies as a full-time mother who are caring her child. In my opinion, since the policy in Singapore is to encourage people to have more children, authorities should think about for a family that the consequence to have more than 2 children is the economic pressures. No matter the working mother or full-time mother, they all have the right to get subsidy from government because mothers put their all heart on taking care of children and work or not, their love to children are all the same. I think the best time for assign subsidies is to give the whole family according to the number of children and the income of the family. From the bottom of my heart, I prefer to give the same subsidy to working mother and full-time mother, because if they get the same subsidy, the difference of income is decided by whether they work or not.

Reflection on Forum Letter —— Holly

Original websiter:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482909.html
From The Strait Times Jan 28,2010


Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too

BEFORE parents decide to have another child, they must consider all aspects, including finances. I did so and was disappointed to find out that a non-working mother receives only half what a working mother is entitled to when her child is placed in full-day care.
Although I understand the rationale of a non-working mother as the main caregiver, I have some questions that need to be answered before I decide if having another child is well within my means.
Logically, doesn't a single-income family deserve more subsidy than a dual-income one?
As working and non-working mothers both 'contribute' to increasing the population, why make a difference?
Have policymakers ever tried taking care of a newborn, and meeting the demands of a young child and housework, all without help?
While many stay-home mothers may be able to cope with a newborn, a young child and housework, how many have found it a struggle and kept silent?
Having a baby is a joy but imagine that joy turning into a juggling nightmare.
If this struggle is removed, some single-child mothers like me may be persuaded to have another child.
Ng Hwee Kiang (Ms)



Reflection
I REFER to today's forum commentary. 'full time mums should enjoy subsidies too' by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang. She indicated a phenomena that full time mothers did not get as much as the working mothers. From her letter, she doubted the policymakers' decision of non-working mothers' subsidies. In additon, she also described the diffficulties for a full time mother to rise up a baby. So, she hoped that the full time mothers can get full subsidies.

In my own opinion, I agree with what she said. For a family rises several children, the mother has to give up her job to look after these babies at most of the time. As we all know, it will cost much to rise up a baby. For these families, if the govrnment did not provide enough subsidies, how can them live a good life. In that condition, mothers may not willing to give birth to another children and the population of the nation can not increase.

So, I think the government should take the pubilc's advice, making sure that the full time mothers can get full time subsidies.

Reflection on Forum Letter___Yuan Mengyi

Original letter from StraisTime Jan 25,2010

Disaster relief - the S'pore way

I REFER to last Saturday's commentary, 'Is Singapore doing too little for Haiti?' by Ms Chua Mui Hoong. She criticised the Singapore Government for not making a bigger contribution to Haiti after the earthquake when we had contributed far more to disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts after the 2004 tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.

As a responsible member of the international community, the Singapore Government has consistently made contributions to international humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in our region and beyond. Singaporeans are familiar with the contributions we have made over the years, especially to the many countries hit by the tsunami in 2004, and after the Sichuan earthquake.

Last year, we provided humanitarian assistance in the form of cash, supplies and equipment after Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan; Cyclone Aila in Bhutan; Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the Padang earthquake in Indonesia; the cyclone in Fiji; the earthquake and tsunami in Samoa and Tonga; as well as for victims of the civil war in Sri Lanka; and food aid for internally displaced people in Pakistan.

As a responsible government, we have to examine the considerations and priorities when deciding how much and what type of assistance Singapore can provide after each disaster. Singapore is not in the league of major donor countries, nor do we aspire to be one. Among other things, we have to consider the nature of our relations with the affected country and whether we can provide aid which will add value to the relief efforts when deciding what to contribute, as we have limited resources and cannot respond to every disaster in the same way.

Hence, we had responded with more significant contributions when Indonesia suffered the devastation of the tsunami and various earthquakes - because it is a neighbour with longstanding and close ties and we were in the position to deploy our military and civil defence assets so that they could carry out effective missions.

The amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of a disaster. In the case of massive disasters in countries beyond our own region, our contributions often cannot be more than a show of moral support and a gesture of sympathy to the affected country.

The support from Singapore for Haiti need not be demonstrated just by the Government. Singaporeans who want to make a contribution can do so through the Red Cross and other groups, and indeed many have. The Singaporeans who have gone to Haiti on relief missions amply demonstrate their compassion for the victims of the earthquake.

Sudesh Maniar

Director, Public Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Reflection

I REFER to today’s forum commentary, ‘Disaster Relief- the S’pore way’ by Sudesh Maniar, the director of Public Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore. She listed the humanitarian assistance provided by the Singapore government for countries who have suffered from natural disasters in recent years. She stresses that Singapore does not aspire to be the major donor country, and as a responsible government, they have to take relations with the affected country and the value of the aids they provide into first consideration. From her point of view, the humanitarian assistance given by the government is not meant to match the scale of the disaster and their contributions can only serve as moral support for massive disasters in countries beyond Singapore region.

I agree with her idea that as Singapore has limited sources, it cannot respond to every disaster in the same way and that Singapore should not intend to be one of the major donor countries considering its own condition.

In my opinion, though our contributions may just be sort of moral support and relief, the government should really think twice about the proper amount of aids we donate. We never donate to show off our power, but neither should we be stingy in case of disaster aids. We are supposed to do as much as our ability can reach. However, as long as the government made the final decision of the amount we donate, we citizens should respect it. After all, the interest of us citizens’ is the priority that the government cares of. Any decision made by the government will be out of our people's consideration.

Google.cn is back

Google.cn is back.

lol...

News Reflection 1 --- by Holly

Title of the article: Kodak sues Apple and RIM over iPhone and Blackberry
Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8460899.stm
Summary: camera giant Kodak sues the phone maker Apple and Research in Motion (RIM) over technology used in their mobile phone. Kodak thought that the technology for previewing pictures used in iPhone and Blackberry has infringed their patant. So, the camera maker decide to bring a lawsuit against these two companies. Kodak has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) for asking some compensation. However, Apple and RIM refused to give any comments on this case. In recent years, ITC has dealt with many cases of patant rights. Many digital companies want to use the law to protect their own innovations.

Reflection: as our society develops, patant rights is playing a more and more important role in our life, especially among some electronic product makers. The products made by these companies are combined many technologies, so, their is a bigger chance for them to infringe other companies patants. Now, it is becoming a common phenomenon that many giant companies accuse each other for copying their technologies. In my opnion, if those companies can share some of their ideas with others and try to make a progress together, they can get much more profits. Of course, we should protect our own patants, but the patant infringe is hard to define, especially in the technological area. I think coorperation is better than dispute.

News Relection 1 -- by Ryan （Dai Yan）

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/americas/16immig.html?hp

By JULIA PRESTON

Published: January 15, 2010

The title of this article is Haitians Illegally in U.S. Given Protected Status. From the title, we can see the main idea of this article that is the Obama Administration provides a shelter to the Haitians who have lived in the U.S previously after the earthquake. Besides, the Haitians are also allowed to find their own jobs. Most of the officials and Americans give a positive comment to this decision. The Democrat of New York, chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration Senator Charles E. Schumer said,” To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane.” Though there are some people who opposite this, after seeing the catastrophic disaster in Haiti, they change their mind.

After seeing this article, I feel very happy that the U.S government could make such a decision that gives a hand to the people and country who and which are in hardship, especially the U.S itself is still under the hardship brought by the economic crisis. From the comments by Senator Charles E. Schumer, we can see the sympathy of human beings and their spirit to help others. This earthquake in Haiti remind me of the earthquake happened in Sichuan. As a city next to Sichuan, Chongqing was also a victim area and some buildings in rural area collapsed and hundreds people died. I also felt the earthquake by myself and at that time, all of my classmates and teachers rushed out of our teaching building. We can felt the death’s coming and the fears rose up from my heart. After the earthquake, seeing the reports of the condition in disaster area and the destruction caused by the earthquake, some of my classmates cried and all of us donated a lot of money to help our brothers and sisters.

I think people in Haiti now needs much international assistance, and I hope more countries could give their hands to this poor country to help people in hardship. I wish people in Haiti uniting together to construct a beautiful tomorrow.

News Reflection 1---Yuan Mengyi

News source: Pumza Fihlani (January 2010). South Africa World Cup 'safe' despite Angola attack, fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8452448.stm

Summary: The terrifying attack on Togo’s football team in Angola has led people’s doubt to South Africa’s ability to hold the World Cup this summer. The organizing committees of the South Africa tournament tried to dismiss people’s apprehension by stressing the difference between their country and Angola. They state that besides the physical distance between the two countries, the money invested, the police and military force input shows the scale of their security operation, which ensures their confidence to confront any “eventuality”. They appeal that people should take care to compare their country with Angola. ISS researcher Johan Berger supports the appeal by considering their intelligence agencies and the unique political situation of Angola. Other remarkable differences between the two countries, such as the situation of separatist insurgency, foundations of economics and politics, and experience of holding international sporting events, are also spotted. Mr. Berger thinks that it is crime not terrorism that is the biggest problem of South Africa. If South Africa manages to confine the worst security incident in a few robberies, their organization will be considered a success.

Reflection: Personally speaking, I believe in South Africa’s ability to hold a safe World Cup, especially after reading this piece of news. South Africa officials have done well to prove that their country is a lot safer than Angola. By emphasizing their scale of security operation and adequate preparation for the event, they deserve people’s even specialists’ trust. From the chart which compares South Africa with Angola, I find that South Africa is quite stable in terms of economics, politics and society, while Angola is a small country still struggling with various kinds of problems. I do hope the South Africa World Cup will be a “football extravaganza” instead of a chance which terrorists take to “exploit for their gain”.

Reflection by Yuan Mengyi

Jan 16,2010

News reflection 1--posted by Eric

Recently a website 'Google.cn' often shows on the papers. The official blog of Google posted an article 'A new approach to China' on 12 January 2010. In the article, Google claims that it has been attacked by the hackers. Also, Google is not satisfied with the censorship of Chinese government. On 15th January 2010, according to Eric E. Schmidt, the CEO of Google, Google has already failed to negotiate with Chinese government and the Google.cn will be shut down recently.
This is the third influential case of the Internet censorship in China. Because some sensitive topics and videos are discussed on the Facebook and Youtube, these two websites were blocked in Mainland China. People have to use special software or foreign VPN to get the access to these websites. In order to satisfy the demand of the Internet censorship, Google.cn has blocked many search results that may arise the arguments about sensitive current affairs. So the government has filtered the results that we can see from Google.cn.

Based on the article that I choose from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Google Warns of China Exit Over Hacking, Google claimed that it had suffered from a lot of hacker attacks. It is very interesting that on the same day, 12 January 2010, the Iranian Cyber Army attacked the most famous search engine in China ‘Baidu.com’. In my point of view, this is not a coincidence. Deeply thought about these series affairs, I think the reason why Google Inc. decided to shut down the Google.cn is only for its bad and unsatisfactory business in China. The reason that Google gave is the excuse for its bad business and the explanation to the directorate. In some degree, Chinese government becomes the scapegoat for the bad business result of Google.cn.

In the past ten years, there are three cases that deeply influence the development of the Internet in China. First, in 2002, eBay invested 30 million US dollars to buy 33% shares of the first e-commerce company ‘Yi Qu’ in China. However, a new e-commerce company ‘Taobao.com’ was set up in 2003 and quickly developed as the biggest e-commerce company and occupied 72% market share and eBay only reached 20% market share in 2006. In 2007, eBay in China was annexed by Tom.com and quit the competition in China. Second, Yahoo! China is also a unsuccessful example in China. Because Yahoo! China didn’t have enough knowledge about local Chinese culture and the market demand in China, Yahoo! China had to sell their company in China to a local business company ‘alibaba’.

The third case is Google.cn. Google.cn was set up in 2005. But based on the statistic from Analysys International 2009, Google.cn only occupied 31.3% market share in China. Most of the Internet users choose to use Baidu.com as their first choice of search engine. As the numbers shown above, Google.cn in China did make an unsatisfactory market result.

In the unpleasant event of failure, Google.com has to give a well-prepared explanation so the Chinese government, the censorship of the government and the hacker attacks become the scapegoat of the Google.cn’s bad result.

Based on some uncertain sources, there might be some further additional reasons related to the politics that I would not like to talk about.

This is what I think after I read the news. Maybe this reflection is quite personal and different but I do believe in my country and our law of constitution. This is what I think it is right to say and I do believe that the Internet in China will not crash down. What is more, I have the faith in the future of our internet environment!

By Jessica E. V., Jason D. and Siobhan G.(13/Jan/2010) Google Warns of China Exit Over Hacking, Retrieved 16/Jan/2010 From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126333757451026659.html

Posted by Eric

16/Jan/2010

Hello!

Just Do It!

From now on, this is our blog.

Hey my friends, we just do whatever we want!