To all my dear readers, I apologise for my inability to prioritise my time. The past few weeks have somehow zoomed by, leaving me with no choice but to publish my responses in... yes microsoft word -.- i shall now publish 2 responses at one go :)
Note: I have finally fixed the problem with my posting by shifting the content of each post around. The order is as follows from top to bottom:
Apologies
Article 2 and 3
Response to Article 2 and 3
Article 1
Response to Article 1
Welcome
Please grade me on Article 1 first, then 2 and 3. thankyou :)
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Blended spinach with cheese soup: "It's a question of need" and "The other benefits of work, besides income" (Article 2 and 3)
These two article were taken from Today in the Voices section on Friday, February 9th 2007.
Potato and leek stew: "Response to articles 2 and 3"
I found it interesting that two contradictory articles were placed on the same page. They both refer to the article “Ageing- but still ‘actively engaged” in which NTUC Income is said to retain older employees. The first article’s writer disagrees with older Singaporeans working because he feels that they are causing the job shortage and should leave the jobs to needier people. The second article’s writer applauds NTUC Income for retaining older employees as he feels that it benefits them both physically and mentally.
I personally think that the first article has a very biased perspective. He makes the assumption that the older Singaporeans who work are ‘just working to pass time’ and are ‘depriving others from jobs’. I find the use of the word “depriving” very strong, and it makes the older Singaporeans seem as though they are the main cause of job shortages. Another assumption he made was that all these people are financially independent and do not need a job to sustain themselves. He wrote that they are supported by their children or have sufficient savings and pensions. But what if they need the money to survive because their children are not providing for them? This contradicts his title of “It’s a question of need” because they the elderly will be the needy ones in this case. An interesting inference that I made from this article was that either the author is jobless or that he knows someone in their 40’s or 50’s who is jobless. The phrase “in their late 40’s and 50’s” comes out quite often and there are very specific examples provided that leaves me the impression that the author is describing his own situation.
Throughout the whole article, from the title to the very last sentence, readers get the impression that the argument is one-sided due to the relentless complaining. The way the writer presents his case is very aggressive and he lacks empathy to such a large extent that he actually comes across to readers as rude.
To me, the most disturbing issue was the fact that although he kept on saying that there were no jobs for the needy, he kept on referring to the “needy” in the age group of 40’s and 50’s. He forgets that the greatest impending problem that post-university students face as they enter the working world is the lack of jobs. Unemployment rate is high in Singapore and it is affecting NOT just the people in their 40’s and 50’s but also in the younger age groups. Young adults also need jobs to survive and doing away with the older generation will not decrease job shortages. Our population is constantly growing and the best his short-term solution can do is to provide a few jobs. In the long run, Singapore has to come up with a better solution to ease the demand for jobs.
The second article gave readers a more balanced view about the issue. It stressed on the other benefits of work for elderly people besides income. The first writer only thought that the elderly people’s purpose of working was to earn income but the second writer was able to bring to light other important reasons why they should continue working. Besides relieving financial pressure by providing for themselves, elderly people gain health benefits. Working keeps them physically and mentally active and this is very important to maintain a healthy lifestyle. At their age, their bodies degenerate easily and forced inactivity of retirement will lead to old age diseases like Alzheimer’s if they remain inactive. It is a healthier way to live too because it is definitely better than staying at home and watching television. By socializing and earning an income, it gives them “a sense of self-worth”, thus allowing them to feel useful, and not as though they were living off their children’s money.
However, although I cannot disagree with the first writer that the elderly are taking up jobs, I find it unreasonable that he should push the blame of the job shortage to them when the number of elderly people working is in fact, very insignificant. Recently, the government has also stepped up its efforts in creating more jobs to cater to the unemployed. I have a cousin whose job is finding employment for unemployed people and she states that the main problem with Singaporeans is that they are too choosy for jobs. They are plenty of opportunities, it is just a matter of grabbing it or waiting for a "better" one which might never come.
Personally, I find the complaining excessive to the point that it sounds like whining. Much improvement could be made on the part of the writer to bring his point across pleasantly by using the correct choice of words.
I feel that it was the newspaper’s editor’s intention to put the two articles on the same page. The stark contrast between the two shocked me at first because in the first article, the elderly were being discouraged to work so that they would be more opportunities for the needier ones but in the second article, it actually complimented NTUC Income in its efforts for retaining their elderly workers. One was against the idea, the other for it. One was upset that the elderly were taking up jobs while another presented the benefits of working at an old age. With both contrasting arguments side-by-side, it made it easier for me to compare the different viewpoints.
word count: 908 words
I apologize for my word count that has exceeded 500 words but since I am responding to 2 articles, I hope you can understand that I need more than 500 words. Thank you.
I personally think that the first article has a very biased perspective. He makes the assumption that the older Singaporeans who work are ‘just working to pass time’ and are ‘depriving others from jobs’. I find the use of the word “depriving” very strong, and it makes the older Singaporeans seem as though they are the main cause of job shortages. Another assumption he made was that all these people are financially independent and do not need a job to sustain themselves. He wrote that they are supported by their children or have sufficient savings and pensions. But what if they need the money to survive because their children are not providing for them? This contradicts his title of “It’s a question of need” because they the elderly will be the needy ones in this case. An interesting inference that I made from this article was that either the author is jobless or that he knows someone in their 40’s or 50’s who is jobless. The phrase “in their late 40’s and 50’s” comes out quite often and there are very specific examples provided that leaves me the impression that the author is describing his own situation.
Throughout the whole article, from the title to the very last sentence, readers get the impression that the argument is one-sided due to the relentless complaining. The way the writer presents his case is very aggressive and he lacks empathy to such a large extent that he actually comes across to readers as rude.
To me, the most disturbing issue was the fact that although he kept on saying that there were no jobs for the needy, he kept on referring to the “needy” in the age group of 40’s and 50’s. He forgets that the greatest impending problem that post-university students face as they enter the working world is the lack of jobs. Unemployment rate is high in Singapore and it is affecting NOT just the people in their 40’s and 50’s but also in the younger age groups. Young adults also need jobs to survive and doing away with the older generation will not decrease job shortages. Our population is constantly growing and the best his short-term solution can do is to provide a few jobs. In the long run, Singapore has to come up with a better solution to ease the demand for jobs.
The second article gave readers a more balanced view about the issue. It stressed on the other benefits of work for elderly people besides income. The first writer only thought that the elderly people’s purpose of working was to earn income but the second writer was able to bring to light other important reasons why they should continue working. Besides relieving financial pressure by providing for themselves, elderly people gain health benefits. Working keeps them physically and mentally active and this is very important to maintain a healthy lifestyle. At their age, their bodies degenerate easily and forced inactivity of retirement will lead to old age diseases like Alzheimer’s if they remain inactive. It is a healthier way to live too because it is definitely better than staying at home and watching television. By socializing and earning an income, it gives them “a sense of self-worth”, thus allowing them to feel useful, and not as though they were living off their children’s money.
However, although I cannot disagree with the first writer that the elderly are taking up jobs, I find it unreasonable that he should push the blame of the job shortage to them when the number of elderly people working is in fact, very insignificant. Recently, the government has also stepped up its efforts in creating more jobs to cater to the unemployed. I have a cousin whose job is finding employment for unemployed people and she states that the main problem with Singaporeans is that they are too choosy for jobs. They are plenty of opportunities, it is just a matter of grabbing it or waiting for a "better" one which might never come.
Personally, I find the complaining excessive to the point that it sounds like whining. Much improvement could be made on the part of the writer to bring his point across pleasantly by using the correct choice of words.
I feel that it was the newspaper’s editor’s intention to put the two articles on the same page. The stark contrast between the two shocked me at first because in the first article, the elderly were being discouraged to work so that they would be more opportunities for the needier ones but in the second article, it actually complimented NTUC Income in its efforts for retaining their elderly workers. One was against the idea, the other for it. One was upset that the elderly were taking up jobs while another presented the benefits of working at an old age. With both contrasting arguments side-by-side, it made it easier for me to compare the different viewpoints.
word count: 908 words
I apologize for my word count that has exceeded 500 words but since I am responding to 2 articles, I hope you can understand that I need more than 500 words. Thank you.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
New England Clam Chowder with sour dough: "Ad on family life paints too rosy a picture"
This article was taken from The Straits Times Forum section on Friday, February 2nd 2007.
Ba Kut Teh with pork ribs: " Response to article 1"
I particularly liked the title of this article, ‘Ad on family life paints too rosy a picture’. It simply states that the advertisements the government is promoting about happiness in Singaporean family lifestyles disillusions the public by providing too beautiful a picture.
The author’s main objective is to tell the government that we should not depict an average Singaporean’s family life as ‘highly middle-classed, English-educated with western orientated lifestyles’ as this is not commonly seen in the majority of our families. He fears that people would be disillusioned into thinking that happiness is easily achievable in family life, when in reality, it is not.
There are two viewpoints. One perspective is from the government while the other is from a consultant family therapist who has been in practice for 35 years. The government’s viewpoint is rather biased as they want to encourage marriages with big families by only depicting the side where fun and harmony exist in an average Singaporean family life. However, the less pretty and more realistic sight would be seeing parents struggling to earn enough money to give all their children good education, close to no leisure time and children worrying about balancing school and social life. I tend to agree with the author because his view is more insightful. Being a family-life educator, he has experience in counseling families and is more familiar with struggles in marital relationships and parent-children problems. He even provides an example of family stress in which a father, who is overseas, is overly concerned about his child playing and not finishing his homework.
I can understand the government’s intentions in trying to promote happiness in family life and encouraging marriages and bigger families but they should also present a more realistic approach, something achievable for most Singaporean families. However, I find the author overly concerned with the public being disillusioned and getting a wrong idea of real family life. I am certain that almost every Singaporean knows that our family life is not as relaxing and enjoyable as seen from the advertisement but on the contrary, rather hectic and busy. The public is exposed to the media not only in the form of newspaper advertisements but also in the form television and radio. The ironic thing is that many of our home-made serial dramas on television depict an average Singaporean family life as complicated, full of tension and stress, and not the least bit free and easy-going. Perhaps it is to attract more viewers but this example goes to show that we are well aware of the type of life we are living. Singaporeans’ lifestyles are well-known to be fast paced and busy, having little time for relaxation.
As Singaporeans, we should realise that ‘family’ is more important than ‘work’ and should sacrifice more time in enjoying life as a family. However, as Singaporeans, you know as jolly well as I do that this will never happen. Not anywhere in a hundred years time.
word count: 493 words
The author’s main objective is to tell the government that we should not depict an average Singaporean’s family life as ‘highly middle-classed, English-educated with western orientated lifestyles’ as this is not commonly seen in the majority of our families. He fears that people would be disillusioned into thinking that happiness is easily achievable in family life, when in reality, it is not.
There are two viewpoints. One perspective is from the government while the other is from a consultant family therapist who has been in practice for 35 years. The government’s viewpoint is rather biased as they want to encourage marriages with big families by only depicting the side where fun and harmony exist in an average Singaporean family life. However, the less pretty and more realistic sight would be seeing parents struggling to earn enough money to give all their children good education, close to no leisure time and children worrying about balancing school and social life. I tend to agree with the author because his view is more insightful. Being a family-life educator, he has experience in counseling families and is more familiar with struggles in marital relationships and parent-children problems. He even provides an example of family stress in which a father, who is overseas, is overly concerned about his child playing and not finishing his homework.
I can understand the government’s intentions in trying to promote happiness in family life and encouraging marriages and bigger families but they should also present a more realistic approach, something achievable for most Singaporean families. However, I find the author overly concerned with the public being disillusioned and getting a wrong idea of real family life. I am certain that almost every Singaporean knows that our family life is not as relaxing and enjoyable as seen from the advertisement but on the contrary, rather hectic and busy. The public is exposed to the media not only in the form of newspaper advertisements but also in the form television and radio. The ironic thing is that many of our home-made serial dramas on television depict an average Singaporean family life as complicated, full of tension and stress, and not the least bit free and easy-going. Perhaps it is to attract more viewers but this example goes to show that we are well aware of the type of life we are living. Singaporeans’ lifestyles are well-known to be fast paced and busy, having little time for relaxation.
As Singaporeans, we should realise that ‘family’ is more important than ‘work’ and should sacrifice more time in enjoying life as a family. However, as Singaporeans, you know as jolly well as I do that this will never happen. Not anywhere in a hundred years time.
word count: 493 words
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Soup of the Day
Welcome to the Soup Kitchen, the place where hungry souls are fed with alphabet soup, soup that fills the stomach and feeds the brain!
I am very unused with the new blogger interface but as you can see, i am having a lot of fun with this new freedom that blogger gives its users.
Articulate
Boundless
Concrete
Delightful
Enlightening
Filling
Glib
Holistic
Insightful
Justifiable
Knowledgeable
Luring
Mature
Novel
Open
Penetrating
Quenching
Rich
Stylistic
Trustworthy
Useful
Valuable
Warm
Xciting
Youthful
Zesty
Feel free to tag your comments -->
I am very unused with the new blogger interface but as you can see, i am having a lot of fun with this new freedom that blogger gives its users.
Articulate
Boundless
Concrete
Delightful
Enlightening
Filling
Glib
Holistic
Insightful
Justifiable
Knowledgeable
Luring
Mature
Novel
Open
Penetrating
Quenching
Rich
Stylistic
Trustworthy
Useful
Valuable
Warm
Xciting
Youthful
Zesty
Feel free to tag your comments -->
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
