Give reasons why the poor remain poor. Can you suggest solutions to this?

Last year, the world observes a healthy 5.1 per cent in the global economic growth rate. However, this seems to be solely contributed by the rich group and the poor remain poor. The world is changing at a fast pace but the poorer nations are often unable to catch up with the changes due to lack of technology and capitals. They are thus forced to remain backwards. As a result, aid from richer nations is essential in bringing the poorer nations out of poverty. Unfortunately, many richer nations refuse to help. Poverty remains also due to high unemployment rate in poorer nations. This problem is compounded by underemployment problem as well as inequality of opportunities in workforce, where only the rich has the reach to better jobs, keeping the poorer bunch remain in poverty.

Richer nations have the technology and capitals to carry out investment projects of large scale and hence, are able to remain rich or become wealthier. However, the poorer groups have little access to technology and capitals. Thus, it is difficult for them to keep up with the progress of the world that they remain in poor state no matter how hard they try. We thus need the richer one to offer some sorts of momentum and activation energy to the poorer one so that they would be able to join the global economic race and leave the cycle of poverty. Foreign aid is a necessity in achieving this. However, many richer nations are not willing to extent their helping hands. In 1961, a commitment was achieved in the rich world to provide aid to the poorest countries equal to 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP). However, by the early 1990s, official development assistance was still around 0.33 per cent, and by 20000s, it declined to around 0.22 per cent. Countries like USA are not keeping to their commitment. USA is a leading power in the world and is supposed to serve as role model for the rest to follow. Sad enough, its contribution is just 0.15 per cent of it GNP, less than one quarter of the global target. Rich nations are unwilling to assist the poorer bunch and allowing them to suffer in their respective stagnant economy.

Another reason why the poor remains poor is that there is a lack of jobs. Unemployment problem is a common sight in poorer nations like Cambodia. The world population is growing, but certainly not the job market, as according to UN, the official unemployment has grown by 26 per cent in the past 10 years. One reason could be the lacking of investment and factories in the nations. In poorer nations, the priority is to feed the people. They are unlikely to have extra capital to investment to create jobs. As a result, they are likely to remain in poverty.

At national level, the inequality of opportunities in workforce keeps the poor in poverty. In nations like China, the richer tends to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer. The rich often have power and affiliation with authorities to exploit the poorer group to benefit them. For instance, the pay for a boy, who transports a wicker basket of raw coal all the way from the mine to the refinery plant, which is often miles away, is merely 1 RMB (S$0.20). Many are under employed because of this inequality that they earn less than they should. In China, the poor university undergraduates are more prone to unemployment than the rich ones, who may be from a less renowned university or have a lower degree.

In my opinion, in order to pull poor nations out of poverty, the richer nations have to keep to their promises and offer assistance in forms of technology and capitals. They can also invest in those poorer countries so as to make it a win-win situation. It helps to create jobs in poorer nations and at same time, create revenue for themselves. Food aid is a necessity for nations that are suffer from famine. By doing so, the nations can focus on economic development instead of worrying about how to feed their people. At the national level, the government should adopt a policy of meritocracy to ensure a level play in the workforce to give the poor equal opportunity in achieving a higher standard of living. Another solution would be to encourage entrepreneurship. By motivating people to be enterprises, together with foreign investment, a vast pool of jobs would be created for the mass.

Education in Asia

Education has always been regarded as a door to success and a higher standard of living. It is highly revered in Asian nations like China and South Korea because there is a traditional belief that only educated people are able to be at a more elevated level of society. Also, due to Asia’s perennial concerns over familial honor and personal face, parents in Asia are doing their utmost to push their children forwards academically. In China, all students have the responsibility to GUANG ZONG YAO ZU (which means bring glory upon their respective family and their ancestors) by none other than making it to a prestigious school and scoring straight “A”s. Nowadays, as people are getting increasingly affluent, parents in Asia are having another powerful reason and means to drive their children—they can afford more enrichment courses. In big cities like Shanghai, it is a norm for parents to arrangement numerous extra-curriculum activities such piano lessons and Chinese literature remedial for their kids. And all these start at a shockingly young age of three, when children are still at a playing age! When accused of being too obsessed with grades and cruel to their children by exploring their leisure time to make accommodation for unreasonably many enrichment courses, many of them protest that it is a social criterion for good parenthood and only the most insouciant parents neglect to sent their children to cram school. They are right in the sense that everybody in society is doing exactly the same thing. According to Time, a renowned magazine, an estimated 90% Singaporean families arrange extra tuition for their children. It has become a duty for parents to drive their children towards a “brighter” future and they risk social disapproval if they do not fill their kids’ every waking hour with study or academic related activities. Sometimes, the population policies of a nation do have an impact on this trend. For example, due to China’s one child policy, families are only allowed to have one kid. As a result, parents are eager to ensure that their only child is well educated and nurtured. All the love and concern, which would have otherwise been divided among several children, is now concentrated on the only child. This explains the extraordinarily acute stress that Chinese students are feeling nowadays.

So, are parents in Asia doing the right thing? It is a controversial issue for discussion. They are doing this all out of a pure and good intension of securing a better life for their children. On the other hand, we are constantly informed of emotionally broken prepubescent and student commit suicide due to ferocious pressure they are imposed on by their parents. In fact, most parents know this, yet the majority of them believe that the goals are worth the risks. In my opinion, parents should not be so concerned about their children’s grade. Students will not be able to grasp knowledge well for they are forced to study for the sake of study. An appropriate amount of pressure can motivate one to excel however, too much of it would likely backfire. Teenagers are likely to experience depression and have high tendency to think pessimistically. Early this month, one student from one of the top Junior College in Singapore committed suicide because he felt that his private part is too small. We all know that this is too ridiculous a reason for one to take his own life. The actual reason behind could likely be the amount of pressure he was facing from his study. Stress compelled him to adopt the negative kind of perception of thinks around him and took drastic actions. This is just a tip of the iceberg. Such kind of tragedies is prevalent in many Asian countries like China and Japan. In China, the suicide rate is the highest during both the period when the third year Senior Middle students are busy preparing for university entrance examination and the period when the results are released. Society should not place too much emphasis on grades. We have to mind the holistic development of a student. Good grade is not necessarily equivalent to the ability to survive in the current globalized world where innovation, creativity and ability to communicate are highly demanded. The stress should be on the need to give children the ability to learn independently, rather than just stuffing them with information. Leisure and work should be in balance; blindly feeding the teenagers may not produce expected results.

It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. What are your views?


Many not so well-to-do countries often cite inequitable distribution of wealth and resources as a reason to their sluggish, if not backward, development. In my opinion, that is one of the most irresponsible alibis. First of all, what equitable distribution of wealth and resources really mean? Does it mean that if one nation has more trees, it will be in an advantaged state? Or does it mean that all nations should have an equal amount of annual income regardless of their effort in striving for a higher standard of living for their respective people? or does it mean that if I have a bigger population, I will have the right to ask for a bigger piece of land from others? Of course not! It is a fact that certain nation has a greater share of certain kinds of natural resources but it is solely due to their geographical location and nobody can deny this fact and no body has the ability to alter it. So, what is the point of talking about equitable distribution of resources? In this era, population problems across the globe are diverse. In developing nations like India, over-population is a tough issue; in developed nations like France, under-population, being coupled by ageing population, is threatening the nation’s sustainability. Certainly, the former is mainly due to speedy population growth but not inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. As for the latter, it is due to slow population growth mainly because of changes in social values and higher standard of living, nothing to do with distribution of wealth and resources.

The problem with world population is often manifested in the shortage of resources when taken as a whole. Naturally, food and other basic necessities would be demanded in great quantity, if one has a huge population. A large amount of resource would have to be channeled to feed and take care of the population. This is mainly due to population growth. India is a big nation with a big reserviour of natural resources. Yet, it is facing the problem of over-population. It would be unfair to say that India’s population problem is due to inequitable distribution of wealth and resources because its government is not poor, considering the progress in its economic development in recent years. In my view, the government has not reacted prompt enough to curb the high population growth. A bigger population does not entitled one to declare a greater share of the world resources. The government knows the best the amount of resource available in its nation, thus it is the government’s responsibility to ensure a healthy population growth for the country so that it will be able to survive and sustain. If the distribution of resources of wealth and resources is determined by the size of a nation’s population, I believe many nations would come out with absurd and desperate policies to boost their own population in order to have a bigger share of the Earth’s resource. That is unthinkable! Resources would soon be depleted and the problem of population and environment would be greatly aggravated in the end.

In many developing nations, the problem of population is mainly defined by ageing population and under-population. As standard of living increase, people tend to have less children or delay their parenthood because they do not need many children to ensure security during their old age as they are likely to have savings. Due to advancement in medical science, infant motility rate has been lowered, which further reduce the need to have more children to ensure survival. In addition, women in many developed are recognized for their ability to contribute to the nation’s economy. Many of them tend to view career as a priority in life and reluctant to be fettered by house chores, hence, delay their marriage. As the younger population starts to dwindle and people’s life expectancy starts to increase, ageing population is resulted in many developed nations like America. For example, more than 16% of Pittsburgh’s population is above the official retirement age of 65. This problem is due to slow population growth and has nothing to do with inequitable distribution of wealth and resources!

The problem of population in the world today is mainly due to either too high or too slow the rate of population growth. It is not because of inequitable distribution of wealth and resources.

Comment on http://differentpersonalities.blogspot.com , titled “how far an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

You mentioned that when freedom of speech comes with a heavy price, only larger nations have a choice as to whether to allow this freedom or not because they are able to withstand the economic blow, for example, the Denmark was able to survive happily in the wave of economic sanction and boycott placed on it by Muslim nations. However, we may not know how long this boycott will last. This may pose a threat to a nation’s long-term benefit. Denmark only has the support from its European counterparts; in fact, many nations outside Europe are in disapproval to its act of mocking the leader of the world’s largest religion, for example, Britain and many Asian nations. This kind of freedom of speech is definitely not desirable and the right is not being exercised responsibly and correctly. It also did not benefit the nation or “improve Denmark society”. In fact, it destabilizes the entire global community by giving terrorists a new solid reason to launch more attacks on human civilization. Another example is the stepping down of Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The opposition parties used freedom of speech as a tool to bring out all sorts of so-called corrupt acts that his family members have committed to light. He was then forced to resign. People against him may say isn’t that good that he stepped down because he is so corrupted? However, we must not forget that Thailand’s economic achieve has soared to record high under his power. Removing him may terminate this high economic performance. What people want is a stable life with good income. There is apparently little benefit to be gained by sacking the Prime Minister. Thus, freedom of speech may not bring healthy changes and improvement to a society. I believe that an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. In the case of whistle blowing, if an individual were enabled to bring down one organization by telling the “the truth”, laws that used to protect whistleblowers may cause system instability. That is the reason why many democratic nations like New Zealand restrict whistle-blowing activities by setting up a system that would ensure that any whistleblower is likely to have just a weak case should he sue for reinstatement and damages. Their aim is to discourage whistleblowers. The benefits of the entire nation are paramount.

Reflect on the causes of global warming, its consequences, the solutions and the problems that hinder the solutions attempted.

According to the research done by the weekly journal “Science”, the average global temperature has risen by 0.2 degree Celsius—100 times higher than is normal for such a short time scale, and 2005 is on course for being the hottest year on record. Beyond description, global warming is the most challenging environmental problem facing the mankind right now. Global warming is mainly caused by the emission of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane by human activities. CO2 level began to soar with the industrial revolution, when coal started to be burnt in large quantities. They have surged in recent decades as more countries become industrialized like China and as more cars emerge on the road, emitting tones of greenhouse gases every moment. Those who are skeptical about this man-made global warming are arguing that the heating up of the Earth is merely another natural climate cycle that we have live through. They then cite natural activities that also produce carbon dioxide such as volcanic eruption. However, we are not living in a place where volcanic eruptions occur everywhere and every moment. It is more convincing to say that Man’s activities give rise to global warming because we discharge greenhouse gases every moment at every place.

Global warming causes extensive environmental problems such as climate change. As witnessed by the world, the frequencies of occurrence of hurricane across the globe has increased and the peak intensity of hurricanes may increase 5-10 per cent, and precipitation rates may increase by 20-30 per cent, as a result of global warming. Wherever hurricane goes, it brings about destruction and deaths. Hurricane Katrina that visited USA last year is an excellent example in explaining the consequences of global warming. In addition, countries like Australia is experiencing more frequent forest fires due to abnormally longer drought than before. Cases of diseases such as malaria and asthma are also on the rise due to rising temperatures and dust storms. As temperature rises, malaria is becoming more common in the traditionally cool mountains of Africa, Asia and Latin America where 10 per cent of the world’s people live. Beijing is being engulfed in the most intensive dust storms in the year. Global warming is partly to be blamed besides deforestation activities at the outskirt of the cities. In fact, consequences of global warming are not exhaustible. It is a problem that requires global effort to tackle.

We do see some efforts in tackling the problem of global warming as countries realize the dire consequences of rising temperature. For example, we do see annual conferences be held to discuss environmental issues, especially global warming. The United Nation has derived Kyoto Protocol for countries to follow to cut down on their emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. However, many critics argue that little result has been yielded by these efforts. True enough, countries seem to be engaging in the meetings, but once they are off the discussion table, everything is back to normal. Fossil fuel continue to be burnt in great quantities, deforestation continue to occur at an alarmingly large scale. Promises are usually not kept. Worse still, some nations tend to use the opportunities to forge economic ties with one another instead of talking about environmental issues. There is a great hindrance to the success of efforts to solve global warming—national interest. British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair said that the Kyoto Protocol on climate change cannot work in its current form and US and emerging economies must work together to cut greenhouse gas emissions. His words carry a great deal of truth. USA is one of the major producers of carbon dioxide. It refuses to ratify the treaty. Mr. Bush refused to sign the protocol because he believes the treaty ‘s binding targeting are too costly for the US economy. Also, like what Mr. Blair pointed out, the Kyoto Protocol is itself flawed as it excludes China and India, the two major producers of heat-trapping gases. What is point when small nations attempting hard to hold back their gases while the big nations continue to discharge indiscriminately? However, one piece of good news is that though China is not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, it has, on its own accord, ratified the treaty and, more importantly, taken steps to reduce emissions by as much as 17 per cent since 1997, as reported by the US Natural Resources Defense Council. Moreover, we also have global agreements that offer carrots in the form of foreign aid and “technology transfer” to involve poorer nations in the war against global warming problem. However, often, these assistances only serve to help to keep those corrupted leaders in power, who have little interest in promoting the well being of their societies. There are many obstructions to the successful execution of measure to tackle global warming problems right now.

Global warming is the most challenging environmental issue that needs to be addressed promptly. It is not wise to risk our future for momentary materialistic gain because it is not worth it! I think the UN need to revise the Kyoto Protocol to involve emerging economies like India and China. Also, it is also the time for US to join the global effort. It should be taking the lead in tackling this problem, considering the influence it has across the globe. It should be an example for others to follow. As the name suggest, “global” effort is essential in tackling the problem of global warming.


Articles of reference
1) “Cold comfort for poor countries” straits times 4/11/05
2) “Global warming’s ill winds” straits times 1/10/05
3) “Kyoto climate pact ‘not working” straits times 31/10/05
4) “Kyoto Protocol: It’s time US joined global effort” straits times 11/07/05

A Nation of Irrational and Diffident Youngsters

The recent demonstrations and riots that are happening in France sound an alarm bell for many European nations. The large-scale violence clearly shows that democracy may not be an excellent means to prosperity. Sometimes, it may hinder the successful development of a society. The French Prime Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin proposed a law, the First Employment Contract (CPE), which allows employers to end job contracts for under-26s at any time during a two-year probation period. It is a part of series of measures designed to boost the employability of youths in the French suburbs. The government claims that it will encourage employers to hire young people. However, students and young workers protest that the newly passed law will erode job stability in France, where more than 20% of 18-25-year-olds are unemployed—more than twice the national average and will make them to be discarded at will.

In my opinion, the law is a necessity in revitalizing France’s lackluster economy, which grows at a feeble rate of 1.6 percent annually. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, workers in France spent only about 1431 hours on their job every year, the lowest among 26 advanced nations. Other advanced nations are far ahead of it. For example, the United States is about 27 percent higher than France with 1822 hours. This somehow shows that French workers are not passionate about their job. This indifferent attitude towards work is, by large, due to the Labour Code in France that makes layoff costly. Once one gets a job, it is difficult for the company to dismiss him or her for the law tends to stand by the side of the employers. Employers do not have to fear for retrenchment. The need to put in effort in their work, and to upgrade one’s skills to stay competitive is negligible. This poses a serious problem for the companies and as a result, many private companies in France are cautious about hiring, as it is hard to fire even when workers are not proven to be worth keeping. They want achievement and development, not unnecessary burden. This is widely regarded as a cause for high unemployment rate among the youngsters. Thus, this new law is necessary. When companies are allow to fire workers, they will not have much misgivings as to whether they have made a wise hiring. They thus would tend to be more generous when deciding the number of workers to recruit. In addition, it signifies that need to stay completive and enthusiastic about one’s job. Understandably, this law is meant to send a positive signal to the younger generation that they must put in effort in their work and stay competitive or they will be eliminated. It is meant to stimulate and propel youngsters in the nation to strive for their future and stay ahead of their competitors. It conveys a meaningful message that they should not rely too much on welfare system. The system whereby people only take without give will not move far. Unfortunately, the law is misunderstood as an evil move to make them the “Kleenex generation”, to be discarded at will. The violence clear reveals the selfishness and lacking of foresightedness in the younger generation in France. They refuse to depend on their own ability to secure their jobs. It is understandable that as long as one is competent, he or she will not be “discarded”. This is the reality of the world. Before the landing of Man on the Australia Island, Dudu birds were abundant because they have no natural predators and food was in plenty. They were well taken care of by the nature. However, when Man came, Man’s hunting activities and the predators that Man brought in such as dogs soon wiped them out. The same situation is looming in France, where people are well shielded by benefits and protections of the generous welfare state and are unwilling to take care of themselves. In fact, this is a major problem in many Western nations, such as Italy and Britain. This could be a reason why France and Italy were overtaken by China in terms of economic progress and development.

The series of demonstrations also shows that French people have little confidence to thrive on their own. This is a serious problem for the nations. Also, France is going ageing at an alarming rate. According to OECD, in 2005, France’s labour force was 2.7 times as large as its 65-and-over population; by 2020, it would only be twice as large. That means that the size of its workforce will dwindle and there will be a sharp increase in people who will be taking benefits out of the welfare system without having to contribute. That is why it is urgent to increase its employment rate and to boost the competitiveness of its people to compensate for the inevitable loss. This law can do the magic but unfortunately, its people do not understand.


Articles of reference

-“The Politics of Make-Believe” Newsweek international, 03/04/2006
-“Violence flares at French rallies” BBC NEWS, 13/04/2006
-“Riots erupt after French protests” BBC NEWS, 13/04/2006

Do you think science and technology has done more good than bad?

The tremendous progress in science and technology has improved our lives drastically. People nowadays are able to enjoy high accessibility of information. Also, science and technology contributes to increasing level of interaction between people of different cultural and religious backgrounds, leading to people’s being more understanding towards each other. Moreover, our health has seen unprecedented improvements because of advancement in science and technology, which, in addition, plays an indispensable role in combating various environmental problems. It is certain that science and technology has done more good than bad.

Let’s start by taking a closer look at our daily lives. Science and technology has made our lives much easier. True enough, with the invention of various machineries such as washing machines and vacuum cleaners, we are happily freed from various drudgeries of having to accomplish chores directly with our bare hands. In factories, machines usually handle laborious works. Workers’ lives are thus made much easier and more comfortable. As a result, we are left with more leisure time to enjoy life and more time to pursue other goals and achievements in life. With improvement in science and technology, our lives have become more meaningful and comfortable than before.

Moreover, with the advancement in information technology, people are enabled to access greater sources of useful information to improve their lives. With computers, radios, televisions and other information dissemination devices, various data can be shared, such as teaching materials as well as knowledge in different fields. This helps increase our educational levels as we learn more things. Also, our understanding of events happening in the world is enhanced simply because there is a reservoir of relevant information available to us. Our frame of reference has also been significantly increased. We are readily informed about changes that are occurring around our world, enabling us to make more appropriate and beneficial decisions in lives. For example, many people in rural India experienced improving livelihood due to availability of Internet services. Farmers are allowed to follow news, check on the weather conditions and make spot market offers on their produce, thus reducing cost. Moreover, farmers are able to learn soil-testing techniques and other expert knowledge that helps increases productivity. As a result, earnings of rural farmers have increased greatly. Science and technology have enabled many farmers to become educated and their standard of living to be improved drastically.

Critics argue that technology makes people less gregarious as they interact less and tend to spend a lot of time on net, chatting with visual friends, immersing oneself in visual world, and reducing the need to physically interact with people around him. Their assumption is that human beings are after all gregarious in nature and anything that alters this nature is bad. They are right in the sense that nowadays, people spend a great deal of times on Internet. This is indeed a shortcoming of computer technology as the time one spends with family members and friends is likely to be compromised. However, people who are obsessed with the Internet are really the minority. In addition, one cannot deny the fact that via the Internet, one is able to meet even more people from different cultural and religious backgrounds. He is also able to understand others better, leading to better interaction between people. Also, Internet helps to strengthen bond between people who are separated by long distance. With the availability of video telephones, people are able to communicate face to face despite the fact that they are distant from one another. Relationships can be continued and connections are prevented from being lost. With advancement in technology, barriers between places are simply reduced to checkpoints at the airports or ports. With inventions of powerboats and airplanes, traveling has been made easier and again, people are enabled to interact with people from outside their own communities. Our gregariousness is even further manifested and enhanced. Thus, I believe that science and technology has done more good than bad.


In addition, science and technology have been bringing about unprecedented improvements to our healthcare system. The high standard of medical care system and sophisticated healthcare facilities enable us to enjoy good health and longevity. Also, they play a vital role in combating tough diseases like cancers. The availability of various forms of therapies, together with sophisticated medical instruments and devices, patients’ survival rate has been enhanced dramatically. Operations are conducted in a more effective and safer way, reducing patients’ sufferings. Currently, scientists from all around the world are focusing on stem cell research. Stem cell has been broadly regarded as a potential cure for diseases like Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. It can also be developed into various organs for transplantation to save lives. If not for the improvements in science and technology, this asset of Man would not have been discovered. In Singapore, scientists have developed safer and improved method to coax adult stem cells found in fornix to grow into sheets of eye tissue that can be implanted back to the patients’ eyes to treat many eye diseases. The role of science and technology is indispensable in the exploration of frontiers in the medical field. For example, with invented electron microscope in 1930s, bacteria that cause smallpox, malaria and polio were identified and hence, leading to the development of vaccines of these diseases, saving lives of many people. Science and technology have done us great good.

On the other hand, we sometimes do find flaws in scientific researches. There are scientists who are so enchanted with finding cures for some diseases that they breach ethical regulations and even go to the extent of committing crimes, harming others’ lives. For example, in Singapore, an independent panel has found that the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI) director Dr. Simon Shorvon committed serous ethical breaches by treating patients like experimental subjects without rights. He administered unauthorized drugs to 127 Parkinson’s patients without their consent or their doctors’ knowledge and jeopardized their safety and well-being. His act was broadly condemned in Singapore. The doctor was severely obsessed with looking for cures for the disease that he overlooked the ethical regulations and disregarded others’ lives. The power of science and technology has tempted many great scientists to go extreme and challenge laws. This is negative impact of science and technology. However, we must not be so hasty to conclude that science and technology is harmful. Considering the huge number of people who have benefited from improvement in science and technology, their good impacts certainly outweigh the bad ones.

What is more, we have been hearing criticisms from environmentalists that science and technology have devastated the Earth. Well, it is true that they gave rise to invention of machineries that produce lots of pollutants, such as carbon dioxide. However, no one can predicted that the industrial revolution in many countries between 18th and 19th century would have such a great impact on global temperature and environment. No one then was able to discover that the manufacturing of early refrigerators would deplete the ozone layer. Only when sophisticated technologies were invented were we able to detect and realize the impacts our actions had on the environments. Critics may argue that the utilization of science and technology in tackling environmental problems is not an indication to their contribution to human kind because they are just solving problems created by them. However, they fail to realize that without science and technology, our Earth may be destroyed to a greater extent. We are dependent on science and technology to solve majority of environmental problems, like oil spillage and global warming. To treat sewage, we need sewage treatment plants. To make reforestation more effective, we need better seeds of trees that can grow faster to protect soils. Global warming is the greatest challenge of this century. Again, without technology, it will not be tackled successfully. Burning of fuel is inevitable in all societies, as all nations need economic developments to enhance standard of living of their people and to make countries economically powerful. Thus we need science and technology to come out with more efficient fuel so that the harm done to the environment is minimized or even nil. The development of bio-fuels, a kind of fuel that is produced from organic products and combusts more efficiently and produces less carbon dioxide, would be a good example to prove science and technology’s contribution to Man. May nations are switching to bio-fuels. For example, the Brazilian government encourages wide use of ethanol produced from sugarcane—a traditional crop in the country—as fuel to replace gasoline. Brazil is therefore able to replace half of the gasoline used by automobiles in the countries. The same in occurring in China, USA, Germany, Austria and many other countries in response to oil shortage problems and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emission. It is estimated that without too much effort, producing ethanol from just Brazil and India would reduce the burning of gasoline fuel by 10%. With advancement in science and technology, global warming problem is alleviated without having the nation’s economic development compromised. This would not have been possible without science and technology. Thus, I strongly believe that science and technology has done more good than bad.

Science and technology has improved our lives tremendously. It makes our life more colorful and meaningful. It makes people more informed and educated and improves people’s health. Moreover, it plays an indispensable role in tackling some of the thorniest environmental problems. Although it creates problems along its progressive path, its benefits tend to outweigh its negative impacts. Thus, I strongly believe that science and technology has done more good than bad.


Articles of Reference

--“Internet reaching the remote and poor.” Straits Times, 23/11/2005

--“Cultivating a scientific culture.” Straits Times, 22/09/2005

--“What is the role of science in developing countries.” AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

--“The next petroleum” Newsweek International, 08/08/2005

--“$10m research was unethical and uncivilised” Straits Times, 13/05/2005