Gridlock gone as 1m cars are grounded

This is an article from The Straits times, August 18.

Not long ago, we were on the topic of urbanisation, its problems and solutions for geography, and as a geography student, I am very aware and concerned about topics that are closely related to the subject. Last friday, Beijing carried out an experiment, which aims to solve traffic problems and ease the flow of traffic. By grounding three million cars, the roads were significantly less congested. It was also said that a 48km drive around the city's busy road took half the time taken during a normal rush hour. Policemen were out to enforce these rules.

To me, this is really a great solution for a country with frequent road problems. In geography we learnt that as a city urbanises, one major problem would be the traffic and the number of vehicles on the roads. As more and more people get higher paying jobs in the city, they will be able to afford private cars and some will rather need these private cars to get around the city even faster to save them more travelling time therefore more work time. Public transport might be deemed as 'slow', 'uncomfortable' and even 'expensive', although i do not really know much about the price and efficiency of the public transport service at Beijing. In the article, it states that 'an estimated 1000 new cars get on Beijing's road each day', which proves my explanation.

With increasing traffic, pollution problems start to creep into the country. It is said that the purpose of this 'experiment' is to improve the air quality of Beijing for next year's Olympic games, and pollution monitoring stations set up around the country estimates that this car ban will reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent, which is a significant amount in such a big city. These pollution problems are something Beijing cannot just turn a blind eye on -- visiting foreign athletes and International Olympic Committee officials could shorten their stays and reschedule Olympic events if these problems persist.

Although this 'solution' really eased the traffic, I do not think that it is a long term solution for the problems they are facing, be it air pollution or traffic jams. Although Singapore is very small as compared to Beijing, many people here are choosing to travel with private transport than public ones. And how much less if it is in Beijing? Therefore, I think that although urbanisation has brought many of us advantages, we will also have to face the consequences.

However, is this ban of cutting down traffic to reduce air pollution for the good of the environment? Or is it only to groom the country in order to be able to host the other countries during the Olympics the coming year? Will these traffic problems and air pollution return soon after the Olympics? I feel that cities which have major traffic problems which cause air pollution -- not only Beijing -- should do something about it too.

(499 words)

Leg-up for older workers: More Workfare and chance to be rehired

This article is from The Straits Times, Monday August 20.

Yesterday, PM Lee made his National Day Rally speech mapping out strategies that would be used to tackle issues such as the ageing population, the widening income gap and the increase of retirees, which I will be discussing about in this entry. Due to the baby boom in Singapore after World War 2, the population of Singapore has increased constantly. With an advancement in technology, the average age of Singaporeans has been increasing recently, observing the effects of an ageing population. Like Japan, the government is trying to then increase the retiring age from 62 to 65.

The title reads, 'Leg-up for older workers' showing that the government encourages employers in Singapore to re-employ older workers (presumably aged 55). Another point to take note is, despite the increasing population in Singapore, the birth rate is not able to 'replenish' the death rate. Singaporeans, like many other urbanised countries face issues of the younger generation not willing to marry and give birth as they are more work orientated, especially the women. Soon, those in the bottom of the population pyramid will start to take on heavier responsibilities, needing to support more older people from their parents' generation. Therefore, by increasing the retirement age of these workers, the older generation would be self dependant and will not need to rely on the support of the young generation.

However, are these workers at the age of 62 still willing to continue working after such stressful working days for the past 20 to 30 years? I would not think so. Yes, there might be workaholics who will still be glad to remain in the workforce but most will not. Imagine after working under tremendous stress and pressure day in and out. Would you be willing to retire at an even older age? Many people will look forward to spending their time waking up early in the morning, not to rush off to work, but to go for a little stroll at the park and then go for their favourite activities in the afternoon at a community centre, or even a long holiday. Not many will then look forward to their postponed retirement.

This is a challenge to the government if they would really want to solve the problem of an ageing population. Employers would also not choose these old workers as they may not be able to produce the quality of work of what a young worker can. Furthermore, these people may not be equipped with skills that are needed in this country with advanced technology. However, in the news article, PM Lee answered these questions confidently. Regarding the lack of skills of the older workers to get employed, he said that it "doesn't mean you will definitely get a job but the employer has to make an offer and take into account the worker's performance, health, preferences and the company's needs, and both sides work out a win-win arrangement."

Although I am still a student preparing to enter the workforce soon enough, I am convinced that the working years of Singaporeans can be increased for the sake of the community's sustainability in the world.

(500 words)

When feeding monkeys = loving them to death

This article is from The Straits Times, Monday May 21.

Some people in this world feel for other animals but an act of a kind man can still be harmful to other beings. This is the case of sympathetic park strollers feeding stray monkeys. As form the title, ‘Loving them to death’ suggests that death comes indirectly for them. I feel that people always think that feeding the monkeys are no big deal—they may not be able to find enough food from the wild.

However, feeding of these wild animals will cause them to lose their ability for survival in the wild. ‘Survival of the fittest’. Every living thing knows that. The monkeys will become too dependant on the tasty food from the humans, thus making their life seem much easier for them. In fact they will turn aggressive and from the article, more than 100 wild monkeys had been run over while waiting for people to feed them. These monkeys even started to attack humans for food. Probably they thought that humans equal to food and every one of us are to feed them. This will be a big problem to people living close to these monkey territories.

These are the harmful effects that monkey feeders will cause and will indirectly cause the death of these animals. Although these people are feeding for the ‘good’ of the animals, I will still not follow suit. I feel that sometimes these people are only feeding them for fun, and most of the times those food are unwanted. This simple act can cause serious problems later on.

For the sake of the survival of the monkeys, I personally feel that the minimum fines for feeding them should be set much higher than $250. From the article, a man was feeding the monkeys despite standing near a no-feeding notice. With this amount of fines, people like him will take note of these signs and deter them from giving the monkeys food. In addition, small roads with usual sighting of hungry monkeys can be blocked out so that the chances of the presence of feeders can be decreased. This will also help them integrate back into their hunting habitat which will be beneficial for both the monkeys and the residents around the parks.

However, these solutions are easier said than done. As a student, I may not be able to suggest a best solution and may not be able to get the facts right. However, these are the least that can be done for the future.


Word count: 423

Tokyo’s recycling plant leads the way.

From: http://enewslink.asia1.com.sg/brsweb/read_1.brsw?this=result&QDT=1&QFLST=HD%3AHG%3APD&DB=BT%3AST%4007-07&QSTR=%28%28recycling%29%29.HG.&DTSTR=%28%28PD+%3E=+20070501%29+and+%28PD+%3C=+20070514%29%29&PSZ=10&MAXL=200&SUMY=1&HLT=0&LSTN=0&ID=000021436@ST07

This article is from The Straits Times, Wednesday May 9. It is to show the world that recycling can be done efficiently and effectively and is definitely useful for saving the environment.

Although everyone is saying so much about reducing, reusing and recycling, I still feel that we as Singaporeans are not participating enough in order to lessen the impact of global warming. Many of us are using resources like paper and plastic so much as we consider their impact on the environment to be insignificant. However, Japan has stepped in to be a role model for the world as to how we can play a part to rescue our mother earth.

In my opinion, Singapore should also have the same recycling system. Since Singapore is lacking of natural resources, instead of incinerating all the rubbish that Singapore produces, we can turn these unwanted garbage into resources for new products. As from the article, this way of dealing with garbage is like ‘killing two birds with one stone – extracting scarce resources from garbage for reuse and, in the process, sharply reducing the amount of garbage that needs to be buried in landfills.’ It can also be turned into recycled sand and other useful materials for the construction industry, solving the problem of the lack of sand for new buildings.

However, I feel that this way of treating the waste materials are not only costly, there will not be many people wanting to work in these conditions. Imagine spending hours handpicking materials from garbage that can be used for recycling. It will not be a job that a high scoring student will want. Although this may be true, I think that this will instead be a good opportunity for people who have difficulties finding jobs. In my opinion, the handicapped or the old people could be employed if recycling plants would to be set up in Singapore. Again, it will be killing two birds with one stone – solving unemployment and at the same time, easing pressure on the atmosphere and landfills.

But, it is also easier said than done. Not all materials can be reused. Furthermore, using these recycled sand for construction, although environmentally friendly, may not be as cheap as the normal construction sand used. More time, work and energy will also be needed to produce these recycled sand, defeating the purpose of reusing garbage.

I may not be very sure as to how Singapore treats the waste materials it produces and how well we do it. However, I strongly encourage Singapore to consider following the footsteps of Japan in order to solve the city’s waste problems, nurture the country’s environmental industry and turn Singapore into a country with self-sufficient resources.



Word count: 452

S'pore needs immigrants to avert population decline

This article is adapted from The Straits Times, Saturday 3 March. This article is about the problem of Singapore's expected declining population and the ways that the government are trying to tackle it.

Due to the higher standard of living in Singapore, many singles or even couples are more involved in their career. This will cause them to marry even later and giving birth to lesser kids. In turn, the population will start to decrease by 2020, 13 years from now. Therefore, solutions are needed to tackle the population challenge fast. DPM Wong: 'Country faces demographic doom if door is shut to them (immigrants).' The image used here is the 'door'. This means that if Singapore does not allow more immigrants to enter Singapore as residents, we will suffer from an ageing population, followed by a declining population in years to come.

Many other countries are also facing this problem of an ageing and declining population. A good example is Japan. With lesser and lesser students attending Japanese universities in Japan, they are encouraging more foreigners to join the education system in Japan. These students are mainly from China. Without this decision, Japan would face the same population problems like Singapore. As for China, it may face serious problems as they are limiting the number of children being born in each family. Sooner or later, the younger generations of China will be experiencing an ageing population and when the older generations die off, the population would decline. It is really a difficult choice to make.

The leaders of Singapore believe strongly that immigrants coming into Singapore can help with the economy and social problems, however some people may not support this idea. Some of them would feel that these immigrants (mostly highly educated) may be competing with Singaporeans for job opportunities here. This may not look very advantageous. But it is added that the Government will help them retrain and get better jobs. This way, the needs of every one is met.

Letting immigrants enter the country freely is claimed to be the key strategy to tackle the problem of the declining population. Many people question the government about how many immigrants should Singapore let in, however to the government, the question more appropriate would be whether Singapore has what it takes to be able to attract immigrants - currently we are facing serious competition with bigger countries such as United States and Australia for the talents. With a flourishing economy for the past few years, the government refers to this advantage as a 'window of opportunity' to attract foreign talents. This article has also urged Singaporeans to be more accepting towards immigrants and help them merge as one into the Singaporean society.

Being just a teenager, I have not really thought much and is not concerned very much about the danger on the population that Singapore will be facing soon, and may feel that it is a small matter. However we will be the ones who will experience this problem.

501 words

Drought-hit Queensland turns to Newater solution

(Click to enlarge.)

This is an article from The Straits Times (Tuesday, Jan 30 2007), regarding the environmental problems that has begun to worsen by the day.

The purpose of this article is simple. It is a warning to us that the environment has been changing drastically throughout the past few decades. Serious droughts, serious floods, serious climate changes and other environmental problems have worsened and increased. In this article, the drought that Queensland had faced was said to be the 'worst drought in more than a century' and scientists say it could be the driest period in 1,000 years. Indeed, the environment is badly affected by the harms that people have caused on mother earth consciously and unconsciously. As many countries continue to develop, pollution problems often are neglected and cannot be avoided.

Due to the drought, acute water shortages are experienced. Thus, a new technology is introduced - Newater. This advancing technology of creating drinkable water from sewage water must be considered by very country in the world. Like the situation in Queensland, people may not know whether they will be victims of serious droughts. Even countries like Singapore who do not experience extreme weather conditions have many Newater plants to supplement their water supply. To me, I feel that this technology is worth the money of the country - it is an investment. The quote from the article, 'There's no choice - it's liquid gold', shows the importance of this investment.

However, it is easier said than done. The huge sum of money that is used to start this technology is worth considering. Some may even choose not to adopt this method of solving drought-caused problems. Such countries like New South Wales and South Australia have distanced themselves from this idea, as they have some other strategies and claimed that newater should be used for irrigation only. Probably they do not know much and have certain assumptions about the quality of newater.... Could they have been experiencing financial problems? Or could they have some better ways of solving the problem? In times like this, you either drink water or you die. Well, it is their decision.

I agree that the quality of life here is much better as compared to these countries experiencing extreme weather. Singapore, being technologically advanced and quite a well-to-do country have made me feel that this technology is worth the money. I may not know really know much about the views and the reasons of these countries not accepting newater, as my thoughts and feelings are entirely based on the article after reading it. Furthermore, Singapore is considered far from Australia.

To many Singaporeans and countries that have running water right from their taps, this article acts like a 'wake up call' for us. Water, indeed, is liquid gold. Every living thing in this world needs water. Probably, people who have lived through the droughts would be able to appreciate their running taps better than we do.

~490 words~