Stem decline in use of Chinese language here....

Two decades ago, if you were to board a bus and you encountered a group of students from Chinese High School or Nanyang Girls' School, you would not fail to notice that they all converse in Mandarin. But today, they have switched to English, which is not their mother tongue, and the steady decline of spoken Chinese in Singapore is noticeable. While other countries have displayed fervour in learning Chinese, we have a slow erosion of the language at our doorstep.

To me, to give up learning Chinese, which is the mother tongue of the majority race in Singapore, is equivalent to being bereaved of our roots. This distinctive language has one of the longest histories in the world, with which only those who come close in contact with can appreciate the magnificence and exquisiteness of it. It is a waste indeed to lose the splendor to be aware of where we really came from, the glory of our ancestors and the bona fide identity of ourselves.

So, where actually does the core of this problem lie? From what I see, it could be the over-emphasis of the English language as the universal and must-know language so as to survive in the modern world. For many years, the government has been trying to encourage and promote the usage of Standard English, in the hope that Singaporeans will have an edge over others in terms of communication ability when they venture overseas. However, with the rise of China at the moment, which may prove to be an even larger economy with tons more opportunities, Singaporeans should not neglect the necessity to be once again acquainted with our very own language, the Chinese language. If English can bring us far in the future, Chinese can definitely bring us further.

In rejoinder to this essential, the government has actively propped up the erudition of Chinese, especially in schools. The new Chinese 'B' syllabus introduced aims to assist those who are extremely weak in the language, in order not to erode their interest for Chinese. While the government has played their part to help, we as Chinese should also keep up with their efforts. At the end of the day, the onus is on us to have the passion for the language, given that the path has already been laid for us in a more interesting and friendly manner now.

When all's said and done, it is really up to us, Singaporean Chinese, to salvage our language and culture, and to pass the light on to our future generations.

"Do you think it is right to sideline the respect for a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others?"

"It all buoys down to perception." How true is this? While some argue that loved ones will only believe and accept that the patient is truly dead when the heart ceases, and thus it is immoral to take away the organs of a brain-dead patient, we are only considering the perspective of the patient's family. What about that of another who might be really dead in the next second if no transplant is proffered to him? If the former were to be in the shoes of the latter, perhaps only then will they see the "perspective" of others.

In my opinion, being sentimental and clinging on to a brain-dead loved one by demanding life-sustaining machinery to stay intact with him may not necessarily be a way of showing your affection for him. Instead, it could be depriving another of an opportunity to be in this world. Some may contend that the ties around the patient should merit true consideration, but can the family really hold on to their loved one at the expense of another's life without any guilt humanly? I doubt so. Perhaps the decision should lie with the patient himself, before his condition deteriorates. It will be a more rational choice then. At the end of the day, the organs belong to him and thus should be taken charge of by him. Whether to donate will be a test of his generosity and compassion towards others, especially when it for a life-to-life exchange.

In the case where the patient cannot decide for himself in time, the family's decision will ultimately be the definitive one. It would be unmerited to ask for the family's immediate approval to donate the organs of their loved one, I do not differ. However, they should realize that a short-span pain that they go through upon deciding would in due course bail out another from the gates of Hell. At that time, they will be reassured to appreciate that the organs of their loved one are doing awe in sustaining the lives of others.

However, I do consent with the author that these organs should not be given away anonymously, not for the recipient to live with debts of gratitude for the donor, but for the donor's life to be recognized and appreciated. This appreciation for what others have done and given to you is the intrinsic value of human ties.

All in all, by donating the organs of a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others should not be seen as sidelining the respect for the former. Instead it is evincing the worthiness and eminence of the donor's life, which will be unremitting in the hale and hearty body of another.

Only 1 out of 5 with cardiac arrest given help....

As I read the caption for the article, I was taken aback by the number "1". "What about the other 4?" That was my immediate response to it.

Heart attack, or otherwise known as myocardial infarction, is the number killer disease in Singapore. It is not fatal, if a trained first-aider or medical officer gives help, in the form of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), instantaneously. As the government is encouraging the learning of first aid, so that every household and workplace has at least one first-aider, many trained personnel are not seen to give assistance in times of need. Why do these people, who are qualified to save another’s life, acquit themselves as merely by-standers?

In my opinion, the main reason should be the lack of confidence and exposure. The training that these first-aiders went through was not factual enough to prepare them for real-time accidents. Hence, when faced with actual casualties, they are not poised to render help, in fear that they will worsen the condition of the casualties instead of helping them. As a first-aider myself, I can understand the worry and concerns of these trained personnel, especially those without experience. No matter how much we practise what we learnt, the stress when confronted with an unconscious person is absolutely poles apart from what we usually do.

Therefore, in order to build up this confidence of our lifesavers, the training provided should be more practical-based rather than theory-based. Also, they should be given the chance to access simulated cases, with the intention that they will be unperturbed and primed to lend a hand in times of emergency. In this way, not only will we be able to save those who are on the verge of death, on a bigger picture, we will be more geared up in face of a disaster or crisis.

Does gender equality really exist?

In The Saturday Times, there was a considerable section on 'Women rising'. Browsing through the various reports on the accomplishments of women in the world, it may lead many to deem the success of gender equality to be true. However, an article that stood out from the rest caught my attention. It read, "Look closely at the figures - it's still a man's world".

If we were to look around the world recently, you could be led to think that there is no longer any need for women to fight for equality. After all, we see progressively more women holding government official posts in many countries. However, this phenomenon varies from country to country, with some parts of the world scoring better than others. Looking at countries with the largest proportions of female MPs, Rwanda ranks the fifth, where women make up almost half the MPs. However, at the other end of the spectrum, neither Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait has a single woman MP. We can see that Arab women, especially, still hold a lower place than the men in the Arab countries. I do not see the point of this inequality.

From the statistics of the International Labour Organisation, between 2000 and 2002, data showed that women made up as little as 20 per cent of managers in 48 out of 63 coutnries. And worldwide, more women than men have low-status jobs, and fewer own businesses employing others. In fact, the only area where women clearly outperform men is in the domestic realm, where they form almost two-thirds of the total.

Why are women still under the hands of men? To many, women are every bit as affected as any man by the challenges facing humanity. Hence, they should be given the same right and engagement in the decision-making processes in all areas, with equal strength and in equal numbers. They should not be only left at home doing housework and looking after the kids. Instead, women should be given the right to be involved in world matters, physically. There is no reason for men to put women down, because both have the same ability to decide for themselves what is good or bad, what is suitable and not.

Besides, the statistics given in the article made me speechless. Amnesty International says at least a third of all women worldwide are beaten, raped or otherwise abused. It is estimated that up to two million women a year are trafficked and forced into prostitution, slavery, sweatshop labour or expliotative domestic servitude. What actually made women deserve such injustice? What is democracy so often said to be emphasised by countries with such inequality to women? Although there is no data on men for comparison here, that for women is really shocking and unbelievable.

In our modern world where countries are working towards being democratic, we should give enough attention to the actual need for gender equality to really exist, such that what we see will tone with the statistics obtained. Men and women should ultimately be seen as 'human', instead of 'Man'.