Response to 'Why DFS needs Mandarin speakers' by Elaine

For week 3's comments, I comment on Harry's and Rachel's reflection.



The article is retrieved fromhttp://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_483570.html

The news that Changi airport only recruit shop associates who speak fluent Chinese has stirred up a huge controversy. Some people show their strong resistance to this requirement on job. However, I agree with the author's opinion that the language proficiency of the associates should depend on the type of the shop.

The criterion is just a common requirement for employees which only aim to appeal to the customers. It makes no difference to those want advertisements which say that professional knowledge is needed. We must be aware of the special features of the work to be a shop assistant in the airport. Singapore is a busy traffic hub in the world where large traffic is experiences everyday and Changi Airport is the prop of it. As a shop assistant in an international airport, proficiency in at least two languages is a neccesary skill to survive. If the shop wants to excel in the intense competition, it must provide more satisfying service. In the condition that more than 50% of the customers are Chinese, the shop certainly will choose the staff that are conversant with Chinese. We can only consider it as a market strategy rather than any discrimination.

Someone argues that if Chinese people want to business in such an internationalized world, they should learn English. However, I think they misunderstand the situation. The point they put forward is absolutely right but it is not suitale in this case. What the shop associates face are the customers instead of the bussiness partners. Customers have their choices to deside which shop they will go in and don't care about will this shop brings more benefits or profits. The shop rely on the customers but the customers don't rely on them, which is different from the interdependent relation in business cooperation. Therefore, the shop must try their best to get accustomed to the client's requirements rather than to expect the customers to speak the language they use for better communication.

In my point of view, the story is all about how a shop adjust their selling strategy and has nothing to do with discrimination.

Ex-scholarship holder in opposition? No big deal

Title: Ex-scholarship holder in opposition? No big deal

Posted by Alex

From: Straits Times Forum

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_484046.html

I strongly agree with the author that it is no big deal an ex-government scholarship holder joining an opposition party.

Though the government has long been dominated by PAP, the Singapore government still claims itself as democratic and free. Therefore, what’s wrong with joining an opposition party? Opposition parties simply have different political visions and approaches in building a prosperous Singapore. The principles of the opposition parties are universally alike, to serve the people and the nation. Due to their rightful intention, opposition parties can be justified as long as they do not turn into subversive parties.

While many academically well qualified people are joining oppositions parties, though not as many as those who joins PAP, I see no reason to blame or question those who received government scholarships for joining opposition parties. The scholarships are provided for students who will one day make huge contributions to Singapore in return for the scholarships. Joining opposition parties does not mean undermining Singapore. In fact, the Singaporeans actually enjoy hearing different opinions. As the proverb goes, don’t judge a book by its cover, differentiating people based on political views is indeed superficial. I, as a scholarship holder, appreciate Singapore government for giving me this prestigious award. However, the scholarships are actually from the taxes from ordinary Singaporeans. Thus, to determine whether the scholars deserve the scholarships or not, we ought to assess their contributions to the nation, not the government.

In the United States, there are 2 major parties. While the US government spends millions of dollars on public education, it never forces any obligations to its citizens to join any parties. In fact, the government even provides free education to foreign citizens who live in the US without discrimination. In terms of monetary funds, Singapore may not rival the U.S., but in terms of openness and democracy, U.S. is a leading paragon in the world.

Week 2 Comments

I posted comments for Harry and Helen's reflections.

Alex

week 4: respond to forum article (By Silver)

title: cash premiums indicate real value of life
from: ST forum
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_483573.html

I strongly agree to this forum article. Most of the time, we tend to believe what we see at first, without any hesitation and suspicion. However, actually, most of these informations are too personal, biased or superficial, which is not really worthy of being trusted. To know better, you have to explore and probe in to the things in person, not just stay on the surface. You need the fact. To believe too easily will makes you lose a lot, especially on the kind of things that will influence on you for a very long time or to a large degree. For most people, buying a flat can definitely not be counted as trifle. For some families, this will add burden to them for life-long time. If you simply believe in the valuation made by the agencies and make the purchase because of the good price which seems so exciting, you are to face the disaster. The purchase and ownership of the house is something quite complex and trouble some. There are a large a mount of incidental expense that you will have to pay in the future. But unfortunately, people usually don't see it when they are buying the flat. Don't smile too early. The prices in the market can change at time and at any speed for it is affected by so many complex factors. Other peoples' experiences of buying a flat can not happen exactly on you again. So think more and look further.

Week 4: Response to forum (by Harry)

The four countries combined, has more than a quarter of the world’s population.


Week 4: Comment on forum (by Harry)
Title: Can the economic aggregate of BRICs surpass that of G-7 in 20 years?
From: Global Times
URL:http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=12451

I refer to "Can the economic aggregate of BRICs surpass that of G-7 in 20 years?
" on Globle Times.
BRIC is an acronym of the four fast-growing developing countries: China, India, Brazil and Russia. They are also called the Golden bricks as the fast develop of the GDP（Gross National Product）. The acronym is first coined and academically used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. During these years most of the developed countries undergo a series of economics crisis; meanwhile the developing countries especially the BRICs perform will and keep developing fast. Goldman thought that the general economies quality of the BRIC countries will exceed the current richest country and became the centre of the world economics.

As my personal view, the four countries, especially China is developing in all social levels. Also China is becoming more and more open and liberal. What is more China has taken more international responsibility and play a more important role in the global affairs. With the economic resurgence, Russia shows the great power of a giant again. India and Brazil grow rapidly.

However just like China, there are many conflicts come up with the fast development, Such as population, pollution and the division between rich and poor. These kinds of problem is different from poverty, cannot solve within years. The properties of a great power need decades to cumulate.

Just as America in early 1900s, it became the biggest industry country. The iron output is several times than German, which is the second largest country. But only after the Second World War, America starts to act like a leader in the international affairs. So what BRICs should do it focus on how to keep the tendency of developing. Soon or late the world will treat you as the centre of the economics and politics automatically.

So there is no need to argue whether or not China, Russia, India or Brazil will be the second powerful country worldwide. The most important thing to care about is people’s life qualities. A strong nation must be a harmonious country, a peaceful country with beautiful lands and consist of fortunate families.

Week3 : Comment (By harry)

Comment1:
I agree with most of your opinions. The authority should both lead and govern the processes of climate protection. In order to achieve the TLC (transparency, longevity and certainty), they government should come up with more policies to help to fulfill the cap-and-trade bills and encourage the investment. Only the law can ensure the longevity and certainty. All these will spur the investment. In addition, we cannot ignore the power of the public. Different from the millions of dollars from the investment or donation, if every single person can contribute a little then the amount can certainly make a difference. For instance, majority of the carbon emission come from the power industry hence if everyone can turn off the power supply where leaving the room. We can safe a large amount of power which equals to reduce considerable quantity of carbon emission.
Yes, we can. With the pledge from the authority, the investment from the big company and the co-operation of everyone, we can achieve the sustainable development.
comment on: Week 2 Reflection on Copenhagen Summit and future climate protection
(by Elaine)


Comment 2:
I agree that if we finally lose Google, we lose a very useful tool in our daily life. However, according to my point of view, we should support our government because I think what the government had done is reasonable and advisable. Firstly, you are right that most of the netizens in China are young so the government should protect them from bad influence. Secondly, the government closed most of the download website aims at protect the copyright of the authors. People will have to pay for musics, movies and books all over the world. In the past, we can download them for free is because the legal system are not complete in China. It is indeed a great progress. We cannot deny it according to our own interest. All in all, I agree that Google brings a lot of convenience to our daily life but a company should always act business abide by the law in the country.
comment on: Ma Tianyang(Hill) http://girlsandhill.blogspot.com/

All above is just my personal view.

Week 2 Reflection on Copenhagen Summit and future climate protection (by Elaine)

Retrieved 15 Jan 2010 from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954019,00.html

.

The Copenhagen summit held in Dec 2009 was aimed to come out another international accord after the Kyoto Protocol to cut down the carbon emissions. However, the conference is widely recognized as a failure because it failed to set any specific carbon cap. Though, the steps to protect the global climate never stop. The Investor Summit on Climate Risk was held to help through investment. Billions of dollars have been spend on the renewable and low-carbon technologies and a larger amount is decided to give for these green technologies. But, what they needed is the allowance of the cap-and-trade bill from the government.

.

In my opinion, the success of climate protection doesn’t only depend on the government efforts through conferences like Copenhagen summit. It may comprise two parts, the action of government and the private supports. There is no doubt that government is the main and most powerful force to fight for the environment as it represents the authority of law. The limit on carbon emissions and the price policy of carbon both can effectively help to control the global warming. But the implementation of these policies to put on limits may cause conflicts between development and environment. Therefore, we need private supports to help. The high attention to environment problems and the large amount of investment in the green technologies will provide more solutions on these problems.

.

When the working progress of the government is impeded, the private sector should take active roles. The Investor Summit is a typical example. Since no real promises for cutting down the carbon emissions was made in the Copenhagen summit, the Investor summit come out the cap-and-trade bill which is a more flexible policy to reduce the pollution. The requirement of TLC(Transparency, Longevity, Certainty) for the government is also put forward. The public has the power to facilitate the process of environment protection.

.

This is the time of economy and no one will entirely sacrifice the interests for the environment. In the competition between economic profits and nature environment, both the government and the public must put effort to maintain the balance and ensure the economic development won’t strain the nature.