Blog 3

Going Green – What’s in it for me?

In a typical day, when I turn on the television, I see the familiar advertisements from NEA (National Environment Agency), telling us how to save energy such as switching off the lights when not in use. Upon reaching the MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) Station, I see poster ads that read “Go Green with SMRT”, where public transport users have a chance of winning six to twelve months of free rides on SMRT transport. All these efforts are so that people can go green and help reduce carbon emissions. I personally believe that there are advantages to going green.

So what does it mean to go green? It would refer to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. This would include using less electricity, plastic items, as well as taking public transport compared to cars.

As a student, I have had the luxury of being driven to and from school. After reading about the increase in oil prices over the past months, I decided to start taking a bus so that my parents could save on the fuel costs. It only costs me a meager 45 cents to take a half an hour ride to school. Compared to the rising cost of fuel, taking a bus definitely saved my parents a number of dollars each month. With new ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) gantries appearing across the island, my parents were encouraged to use public transport to get to work. The car was only driven during the weekends. As a result, the car only needed to be refueled every fortnight. Our decision to go green saved us about $150 each month.

Some people may argue that taking public transport is not as comfortable as driving a car. This can be proved true especially during peak hours, where people on public transport are basically packed like sardines. This is one situation which cannot be helped. However, SMRT has taken measures to improve the situation such as reducing the waiting time for trains by adding more trains to arrive at peak hours. In fact, our situation is much better than other countries.

Then there is the issue of plastic bags. I have noticed supermarkets such as NTUC Fairprice making a conscious effort to go green. The thickness of their plastic bags has grown thinner over the years. Now, the material is thin enough to be translucent when I stretch the plastic. Actually, plastic bags are not really that bad. We can recycle these bags to dispose our rubbish, a common practice in many households.

In terms of electric usage, you may ask how does using less electricity make you go green? Our power plants generate the electricity we use in Singapore by burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. By using less electricity, less fossil fuels need to be burned, thus reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air. In fact, there is currently a 10% Energy Challenge going on. If you are able to reduce your household’s electric usage by at least 10%, you can enter a draw where you stand to win energy efficient products, with the grand prize being a hybrid car. Besides, conserving energy need not be at the expense of your comfort. Take for example, the air-conditioner. Although a convenient invention for cooling the room, it uses ten times the amount of electricity a fan uses. To achieve the same cooling effect, you can use three fans, and still use only one quarter of electricity used by an air-conditioner. This results in cost savings of up to $600 a year.

In today’s world of inflation, every cent matters, and the cost savings of going green can be used to buy other things. Do your part for the world today and help stop climate change by going green.

-----

Reference Article

Going green makes cents

Section:	Think
By:	ANDREW RAVEN
Publication:	The Straits Times 22/06/2008
Page:	29
No. of words:	2

[EX-PAT FILES]

I used to be your typical Western energy glutton. I'd drive my car four blocks to pick up bread.

If the temperature in my flat went above 23 deg C, I'd switch on the air-conditioner.

I avoided public transport like the plague, and nursed my decade-old Honda through a string of oil and exhaust problems.

But things here in Singapore are different. My primary mode of transport is a 12-speed mountain bike, the first I've owned in about 15 years.

My flat's lone air-con doesn't rumble to life until the mercury hits 28 deg C. And I've developed a tolerance to being sandwiched into an MRT train.

I wish I could say the changes were prompted by a new-found concern for the environment, a realisation that my profligate power consumption was in its own small way killing the planet.

But really, the reversal was driven by the bottom line. With stratospheric car taxes, unsubsidised petrol and relatively pricey electricity, being an energy hog in Singapore is really expensive.

These sky-high costs seem to be more of a testament to orderliness and pragmatism than conservation, but the end result is the same: Gobbling up natural resources here comes with a serious hit to the pocketbook.

It's not the same in North America where, despite rising oil prices, luxuries like cars remain within the grasp of most.

While the vehicle ownership system here smacks of elitism, Singapore is one of the few rich countries that have managed to keep their citizens away from cars and on public transport.

Only about one in 10 people here owns a vehicle; in the United States, the number is closer to eight in 10.

The country's bus and train grid is light years ahead of those in most North American cities I've been to. Trips are cheap, trains are run with military precision and the Government is quick to fine operators whose foul-ups make people late.

And despite the icy gales blowing through some shopping malls, there seems to be a relatively restrained approach to air-conditioning. (Well, at least around my HDB block in Toa Payoh where many balconies are air-con free.)

The last seven months in Singapore have taught me that going green really isn't all that painful.

While the mid-afternoon heat can be punishing, my 15-minute bike trip to work is actually kind of enjoyable. And given some time to adapt, a Canadian body can become accustomed to living in 28deg C heat – as long as there is a powerful fan nearby.

I've also come to see that the innovative social experiment that is Singapore could offer some lessons to other nations.

It's true, the country's tiny size and political system give birth to things that would be near-impossible in the sprawling, car-loving democracies of the West.

Imagine the uproar in America if people were faced with the prospect of dropping the equivalent price of a college education on a Honda Civic.

However, the US and Canada could learn a lot from Singapore's pay-through-the-nose system. While unpopular, higher car taxes and electricity prices would make people think twice about the resources they devour.

Pumping money into rusting subway systems and beleaguered bus networks would also convince more people to leave their cars at home.

These are ideas that have been around for decades, but haven't gained much traction. But with climate change rearing its ugly head, it's probably time to embrace them abroad.

Andrew Raven is a Canadian-born copy editor with The Straits Times. He has been in Singapore for seven months.

Democracy

Democracy is defined as “the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group” by WordNet. Democracy is a double-edged sword and can create social stability when wielded correctly, yet create a totally different outcome when wielded wrongly.

One notable aspect of democracy is the freedom of speech. In a way, people feel good when they are not restricted in saying things. However, such freedom to express views lead to a number of problems. Various groups of people hold different values and beliefs, and there are bound to be conflicting interests or beliefs. When a person expresses his view freely which happens to conflict with the belief of another group of people, outrage and conflict is expected.

One such example would be the Wee Shu Min Elitism Scandal where she posted elitist comments on her blog. As her father had let her express her views freely, she decided to blog harsh remarks targeted at a blue-collar worker. As a result, there was uproar in the blogosphere. As such, democracy does not create social stability. When people are presented with the idea of democracy, freedom of speech and civil rights, they forget that others are entitled to their own views.

Another major problem of democracy is that rights of the minority are compromised. As democracy is built on the beliefs of liberalism and equality, there can never be true democracy since the minority that does not agree with the majority may not have their say in politics. Just because 99 percent of the population wants to cut down a tree due to convenience and 1 percent are environmentalists and want to save the tree, does that mean that the majority can have their way and the interests of the minority are ignored?

Then again, democracy can create stability. It evenly distributes power to the people, attempting to prevent a government with its own agenda. As such, it prevents an abuse of power through a series of checks and balances, such as a judiciary system independent of government and opposing political parties.

In our age of globalization and massive development, we need a system where people are entitled to their own rights and are allowed to do anything out of free will. Only such would a country be able to advance.

In conclusion, democracy is a double-edged sword which can help improve a society’s stability. Boundaries need to be set in place so as to ensure that nothing goes out of control. There is no easy or fast method of defining the boundaries, but rather is determined by the discretion of the people. People need to respect each other’s rights as well as opinions.

English Blog Post 1

Mummy, I still want to live!

This article is from The New Paper (News) 10/01/2008
Wild time while at university leads to pregnancy for 21-year-old, so she decides...
AN UNWANTED pregnancy can happen to anyone, regardless of family background and household income.

Lisa (not her real name) was 21, in her third year of university and lived it up by partying.

Then she became pregnant.

Confronted with the choice of having a baby or ending her party lifestyle, she chose to give up her baby.

Mr Noel Tan, 37, co-founder of Sanctuary House, remembered this case well as it was among the centre's first few cases.

Sanctuary House takes care of babies and puts the mothers in touch with support services while they decide whether to keep them or give them up.

Tipped off about Lisa, they approached her to find out how she was coping.

At the time, she was nearing her full term.

Said Mr Tan: "She told us that she can't have the baby because she wants to go back to her partying and drinking. Having a baby would mean that she loses her freedom."

Lisa was also in her final year, and she needed to focus on her studies, she said.

Said Mr Tan: "It was sad to hear that, but at least we knew the child would be safe.

"We didn't want to stress the situation further because at this stage, the baby's well-being was paramount."

So he and the other counsellors helped her with adoption – a choice she made – and the legal documents needed.

They did not ask her why she didn't opt to abort the baby.

After all, abortions have remained high among teens.

In 2003, there were 1,483 teen abortions out of the total 12,272. In 2006, teen abortions figure 1,391 of the more than 12,000 abortions.

Nineteen of these girls were under 15.

Noting this trend, Mr Tan said that Lisa made a good decision.

He said: "When she came to us, she was able to make a better decision... a more responsible solution to let someone else who can, care for the baby. It could have been worse."

Once she gave birth, there was minimal contact between her and the baby. This was done to prevent her from bonding with the child while adoption papers were sorted.

PREGNANT SISTERS

Lisa's case is among the 85 per cent of the babies they care for whose mums give them up for adoption.

About two out of 10 unwanted pregnancy cases it sees are young teens.

The rest are mothers in their late teens to mid-20s and early 30s. It also includes a handful of foreigners.

While Lisa's case went well, MrTan cannot say the same for another 19-year-old who disappeared after a few months and got pregnant again.

Even more worrying, her 17-year-old sister also had an unwanted pregnancy.

Jane (not her real name) had a newborn to care for and a boyfriend who walked out on her.

Furthermore, she was living with her relatives.

Desperate, she went to the centre.

As she sought help with counsellors, her three-month old baby girl was cared for by volunteers.

With her O-level qualification and help from another agency, she managed to get an office job.

The centre worked together with other agencies to arrange financial subsidies to help her pay for infant-care and food.

After three months of counselling, she decided to take back her baby. And that was the last time they had heard from her.

Till now, he does not know how Jane and her sister are coping as they lost all contact.

They believe that she has returned to the father of her first child.

The volunteers had tried her contact numbers and even went to her relatives' place, but no one knew where they went.

Said Mr Tan: "It's not that they don't care. Most of these teens have no financial means, are still schooling, and are often single mothers with no family support. As a result, they come to us.

"It takes a lot for them to come forward. So rather than harp on their mistakes, we want to make sure they make a better decision for the well-being of the baby."

She told us that she can't have the baby because she wants to go back to her partying and drinking. Having a baby would mean that she loses her freedom.
– Mr Noel Tan, 37, co-founder of Sanctuary House

-------------------------------
My reflections:

In today's society, we have teenagers who are pregnant under the age of twenty. And most of these teens go for abortions which results in the loss of innocent lives. We must first ask ourselves, why are there such cases?

Teenagers who have undergone puberty feel that they are perhaps physically ready to have babies. However, they fail to realize that they are not emotionally or financially ready for such a feat. In order to raise a baby, there are many costs involved such as the hospital bill, and teenagers who are not working would have difficulty doing so. Their thinking may also not be matured enough to look after a baby.

Furthermore, having a baby would also restrict a teenager’s activities such as going out with friends, simply because there is a young one to care for at home. As a result, the teenage parents may regret having a baby, and there would a newspaper article on an abandoned baby the following day.

Then again, there are also teenagers who accidentally have babies in a “moment of foolishness”. Perhaps the message has yet to drilled into the minds of teenagers that pre-marital sex is not the way to go and the necessity of contraceptives. It is precisely from these moments of foolishness that result in the abortion of babies.

In my opinion, the best way to prevent teenage pregnancies is through campaigns and education. Institutes of education should have annual talks on teenage pregnancy and how it can be prevented. The seriousness of the consequences should be emphasized on, in order to “scare” the teenagers. If possible, also use local case studies, not meant to shame, but to educate.

However, in the event that it is not prevented, family and friends should give their full support to these inexperienced parents. Raising a child can be stressful, and for a teenage mum whose thinking may not be mature, the stress may be great enough for the mum to abandon the baby. Furthermore, there are also associations to get help from. These associations would then help the parents to find jobs so as to support the family. One such association in Singapore is Sanctuary House which deals with unwanted pregnancies and caring of the child.

In the case that the teenage mum wants to abandon her child, she should consider giving up the child for adoption instead. There is a substantial percentage of adults who unable to have children of their own, and would gladly adopt children.

Finally, if teenagers have been educated about teenage pregnancy, what would their choice be?