Thursday, August 28, 2008

Impact of Video games on teenager

Article Used:

http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=01&year=2007&date=16&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2007_5473767

Firstly, I shall talk about the issues mentioned in this article. This article talked about both the positive and negative impact of violent video games, and who will be implicated by the people who play them. Now, I shall mention a few positive traits of violent video games mentioned in this article. The positive traits of video games mentioned are that they are able to improve your motor skill and are able to improve your reaction time, and one evidence they gave would be that surgeons who play video games are more advanced than veteran surgeons. Personally, as a video gamer, I play extensively (around 10 hours a week on school days), and I find that it is able to improve my awareness of surrounding as well as my reaction time. Firstly, I play First person shooters, which are fast-paced games, which requires players to think fast, react fast, and be constantly aware of their surroundings, and to survive in the game, I have to be constantly aware of my surrounding, and when enemies appear, I would have to act decisively on where and how should I plant the attacks while keeping myself alive, and to do this, I have to be aware of my surroundings. So in short, some of the skills we are able to learn from video games include problem-solving abilities, perseverance, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, estimating skills, inductive skills, resource management, logistics, mapping, memory, quick thinking, and reasoned judgments which some of them will not be taught in school curriculum.

Video games can also be helpful in other areas. Children who have problems with attention, self-esteem, and boundaries are often helped by the gaming experience, and video games are now being implemented into therapy for these types of children. Children that see themselves as failures also receive benefit from playing video games, because they provide the player with a sense of participation and excitement in basic life-like situations. Video games furthermore “empower” certain children who have a difficult time in social situations. For example, a child who is an outcast may gain social standing because he is a video game aficionado.

Now, I shall talk about the negative aspects mentioned in the article, and add in my own opinions. In the article, one of the few negative aspects mentioned is that violent video games may induce bad behavior in children, or anti- social behavior. “So, violent video games are just another risk factor. Just like a pack of cigarettes today contributes to an increased risk of developing lung cancer later in life. But you know, nobody says smoking isn't a problem just because two-thirds of smokers don't develop lung cancer, and it's the same with playing violent video games.” However, I shall argue that that video games do not cause anti- social behaviors, it may even have “medicinal value”. Children who have problems with attention, self-esteem, and boundaries are often helped by the gaming experience, and video games are now being implemented into therapy for these types of children. Children that see themselves as failures also receive benefit from playing video games, because they provide the player with a sense of participation and excitement in basic life-like situations. Video games furthermore “empower” certain children who have a difficult time in social situations. For example, a child who is an outcast may gain social standing because he is a video game aficionado. Also, from personal experience, even though I play extensively, I still do not sacrifice time with my friends just to play video games, nor will I sacrifice time spent with family just to play my x-box. Also, while playing my games online, I will meet people from all around the world, and will be able to chat with them, for example, there are waiting rooms and lobbies found at game server which operates like MSN or chat rooms, and players here can discuss anything under the sun. Also, players have to work together in games in order to win the game, which means that video games will help us cultivate teamwork because in video games, one cannot be a lone wolf.

One of the few other negative traits that one can connect with video games, regardless of whether it is violent or not will be the time spent on them, a.k.a addiction. Many teenagers and even adults around the world face this problem, and their addiction to games make them lose out a lot of their social life, career/ academic, etc. However, I believe that their addiction to video games can be countered if they knew how to prioritize their time and have self control over themselves. Personally, sometimes I will lack self-discipline, even though I promise myself to play for only 1 hour, it may drag on for more than that. So these are the down-sides of video games that parents are most concerned about.

Going back to the point of video games inducing violence in teenagers, I think that this is a false claim. This is because it has been proven scientifically that video games help relieve stress and pent-up anger in individuals. For example, when humans are stressed, some of the actions we may do in an attempt to relieve stress will be to punch the wall, and that instead of punching the walls, or releasing your pent-up anger on another human, which may involve physical or emotional harm, one can resort to cyber-gaming, like for example Counter Strike, where players are able to relieve their stress when they kill their opponents. So, in this sense, video games have positive impact on teenagers. Also, there are only rare cases of people who play computer games that actually commit murder, suicides and other stuffs that are attributed to the game. In the end, it all boils down to an individual’s self control and discipline. So after looking at all the positive and negative traits that video games have, I conclude that video games have positive impact on teenagers.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Democracy creates stability in society

Democracy creates stability in society

I believe that democracy does not create stability in society. This is because, in a democratic country, the ruler is voted by the majority, so the government can be said to be ruled by the people. As for minority, there too will be political parties representing them, thus their views will be considered too and put in use. In a democratic country, everyone are given equal treatments and the right to vote, thus it is fair for the citizens. Now, I shall back my stand with a economical perspective. Take a look at Singapore and Korea, they are among the richest country in the world, and they follow the democratic rule, and democracy influences the country’s development as a fair government gives equal treatment to its people and thus provide for development in a country. So, if the country is prosperous, naturally it will be stable as there will be lesser crime rates, thus democracy creates stability.
Another point that democracy creates stability is that when a country follows democracy, the people are free to express their ideas to the government. For example, in Singapore, the government uses a feedback system which looks at ideas from the citizens’ point of views for improvement in public service. Another good point of democracy is that all citizens will have the right to vote, meaning they can get to choose who their future leaders will be, and thus the future leader will get solid support from their people since it is a majority-rule system. Thus, democracy can create stability.
However, democracy is like a double-sided sword, there are bad points to it too. Lets take a look at Africa, as there are many citizens who are uneducated in Africa, thus naturally they are not opened to the idea of democracy, and furthermore, in a democratic country, the people chooses their own leader, and since the majority are uneducated, or not properly educated, then they will certainly make a mistake when they choose their leader. As a result, the people are trapped in a poverty circle, and democracy will not let them get out of it. So, there will be riots happening, resulting in people dying, unstable economic, and this vicious cycle will go and on, thus democracy does not create stability in this sense.
Another example we can look at that says democracy does not create stability is India. In India, even though they follow democracy, but it can be easily observed that the gaps between the rich and the poor are getting bigger and bigger. And a democratic system promises that everyone gets equal treatment, but in India, apparently the poorer citizens are not being treated equally as the richer citizens are.
So, in conclusion, I will say that democracy does not create stability in a country, because stability means that there is a zero-conflict condition, but this condition can never be achieved in any country, as there will always be clashes of ideals, or sometimes even riots. As democracy is based on popular beliefs or majority rules, thus the political parties will be making use of the media to promote their ideals, and the lesser educated will be enticed by the media’s propaganda. Like for example, the issue of whether abortion should be legalised in America has been a drag because of democracy, and the politicians of different ideals have not yet reached a clear consensus because a democratic systems mean that both the minority and the majority views are considered before reaching a policy. Thus, democracy may not be an effective solution in the long run.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Reflection On Article.

This article is about the issue of whether setting up a casino is a wise choice for Singapore. I believe that setting up a casino in Singapore will not benefit the people of Singapore much. However, there are some benefits of setting up a casino. When the casino is completed, the world will gain more recognition as a first-world country, and there will be more tourists visiting Singapore because of the casino, and as there are more tourists, their expenditures will contribute to the economy of Singapore. However, there are many disadvantages of setting up a casino too.
I agree with the article's author that setting up the casino is not a wise choice because there will be people addicted to gambling, and eventually, they may become bankrupt and become a social and financial liability. Even though the government suggested ways to prevent people from becoming a social burden like not allowing lower-income citizens to enter the casino, but this "solution" will not work because Greed is a human nature, and even the high-income earners and gamble all their money away in the hope of winning. The government's next solution is to provide "treatment" and "education" to those susceptible to gambling, but they do not understand the agony of those next of kins of those hardcore gamblers.
In the short run, the government would gain a fortune from the people who gambles in the casino, and from the tourists' expenditure in Singapore, but in the long run, the economy of singapore will drop because there will be many cases of bankruptcy, and many people would be jobless, which will be a big impact on Singapore. Furthermore, when gamblers are almost bankrupt, they will try to recoup their losses by borrowing money from people both legally and illegally, and they will go back to the casino to "try their luck"again, and this is a vicious cycle as they will never repay their debts.
Thus, in conclusion, I urge the government to seriously consider the loss they and the people will suffer from the casino, and desist from a course of action that may well be the beginning of our undoing.

Chong Xin Yong (3B)

Social Issue in Singapore (Casino)

Article:

The Straits Times, Forum Page 19 Mar 04

Government is right to try and save gamblers from themselves

Judging from the information provided in the article "Breaking the bank to woo Lady Luck" (The Sunday Times, Mar 14), the Government's decision to restrict punting in Singapore's casino - if it is built - to the rich, is a prudent one ("If your chips are down, you're out, ST, Mar 17)

While we should have a casino here for reasons symbolic (to indicate that Singapore is opening up) and economic (to provide revenue for the tourism and service industries), the social implications of having a casino also need to be considered.

A recent survey showed that one in five people doubt they can give up gambling, and most addicts can't or won't admit they are addicted. A counsellor said: "When (the gamblers) lose, they think "If I stop gambling, there'll be no reward". Hope of winning outweighs rationale and willpower."

In another article "Why the casino rethink" (The Sunday Times, Mar 14) Mr Edwin Choy, who co-founded the Centre for Fathering, said: "Families have been ruined because of the gambling casinos encourage. The majority of gamblers lose most of times, it's a lose-lose situtation for the gamblers and families."

Because society and rules evolve gradually, a sudden policy change without safeguards may be too much, too fast, simply because people underestimate - or are unaware - how addictive gambling can be.

Do Singaporeans have the discipline to stop? While I am sure most do, there are some who don't. So we presently still need government regulations to save gambling addicts - blinded by greed at the gambling table - from themselves. It is truly sad to see people borrowing money from banks just to gamble. Perhaps after getting used to a casino and the personal responsibility that it entails, there can be a gradual liberalisation of rules.

By considering building a casino, Singapore itself is taking a huge gamble. The stakes - the financial future of individuals and families - are indubitably high. So it is better to take things slowly, with the understanding that this is a gamble that we - as a small country with zero natural resources - simply cannot afford to lose.

Author: Benson Ang Weixiong