Issues on Bird Flu

Bird flu outbreaks have become increasingly rampant across the globe recently. Worldwide reports have seen H5N1 strain of the avian flu virus be detected in various parts of many countries. It migrates from one place to another without respect for national boundaries and obviously, no country is expected to be safe from the devastating impacts of bird flu outbreaks.

Since the first outbreak of avian flu was officially made known, many countries have channeled much of their resources to set up precautions measures in an attempt to immune their nations. For those countries that have already been visited by the deadly virus, they implement tougher policies to contain it. However, all these are unilateral actions taken by the authorities. So far, we have seen little public participation in this war against bird flu. The prevalent ignorance among the public regarding the impact of bird flu outbreak in many countries like, Indonesia and China, could well render all these measures ineffective. In China, rural people tend not to keep their poultry in pens; instead, they allow them to wander around. Also, when the Health officials come down to examine poultry, they tend to hide their birds for fear of loosing them. Once dead birds are discovered on their farms, what they are most likely to do is to consume them instead of making a report to the state Health organization. As a result, rural areas have become the weakest link in China’s strategies in combating bird flu. This phenomenon is happening in most counties. Poultry sale constitute the major source of farmers’ income. When an order to kill birds is executed, farmers do not usually get the proportionate amount of compensation. Therefore, they are reluctant to cooperate with Health officials. Their predicament is understandable. However, it is vital to bring the right message across to them that their lives may be in danger if they consume the infected birds or stay with them. It would unrealistic to depend solely on the authorities to protect the countries. Public has a part to play. If they refuse to cooperate, measures could not be launched successfully and resources channeled would be underutilized. Thus, I believe that governments around the world should focus more on public education to make people more informed about possible danger of bird flu outbreak and the importance of their participation to make bird flu combating measures more effective.


Besides inadequate public education, we also see other discouraging sighs. Bird flu has a great tendency to mutate, as according to science experts. Also, it spread at a fast pace since migratory birds are its major carriers. Thus, it is urgent and important to contain it quickly to protect people from being infected. However, some countries are not acting promptly enough to contain the virus, leading to people’s life being endangered. According to a Time article, titled “Turkey Copes With Bird Flu”, when first outbreak occurred in Turkey, farmers complained of slow and chaotic response from the government. The Health workers took days to collect birds in the infected area after a report of suspicious death of birds was made. In Kuala Lumpur of Malaysia, residents in affected shantytowns complain of slow response as well. This could be devastating as outbreak of bird flu may become difficult to contain and more people may get infected. It also gives the virus more opportunities to mix with human flu virus to create a more favorable environment for it to mutate into more lethal virus.

Another resistance to the effective combat against bird flu is lack of transparency in Asian countries. Firstly, the authorities are not being transparent to the people. There are people who are willing to cooperate with the Health workers. However, this could only be proven when the government tells them the actual situation. In Malaysia, the government officials constantly tell its people that the suspicious dead chickens in their respective farms are isolated cases and there is no cause for alarm. However, farmers are mobile and if anyone of them gets infected, people from the same communities and hence other communities, may be get infected. A vicious chain reaction may be yielded. Secondly, countries are not being transparent enough to the world. China has also been quite conservative in revealing its outbreak situations to the outside world. The reasons behind this could be heavy economic impacts of making the outbreak known to the world. For instance, its tourism earning would dwindle since foreigners would be discouraged to visit the country. For countries that depend substantially on poultry export, like Malaysia, being barred from exporting their poultry would reduce their revenue. For example, 60% of poultry traders’ business is affected in India.

On the other hand, we do have good news. According a Straits Times’ article, titled “ race on to prove vaccine works in humans”, Dr. Andrea Gambotto from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center have engineered a vaccine that works perfectly on mice and chicken. Though, trials on humans have yet to be conducted, it is likely it will work on human beings. Adding to this encouragement, some countries, which may have yet detect any trace of a bird flu outbreak, are taking effort to rehearse their measure so that they would be more prepared should an outbreak occurs. For example, Singapore conducted a rehearsal last year to allow its health workers to have hand on experience on how to handle infected birds.

Bird flu has no respect for national boundaries. Nations have to work closely together to share each other’s strategies. It resembles the situation of air pollution problem, where no countries could be hopeful to be spared from the devastations resulted from the pollution. The only way is to cooperate. For instance, Singapore could recommend its virus-free-chicken tactic to the world to help them detect possible outbreaks. It is a measure whereby chickens with weak immune system are kept among poultry. Should bird flu strikes, they would the first to tell is existence. Also, nations should be more transparent in telling their own people and the outside world the actual situation and emphasize more on public education to increase the public’s knowledge regarding bird flu. With full and close cooperation among nations and between the government and its people, we will be more confident to win this war against bird flu pandemic.

“How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

In my opinion, an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. Freedom of speech genuinely means that people are allowed to talk on any topics anywhere and anytime as they like, without having to consider much about what others feel. It is needed when the government requires people to give feedbacks on its policies and contributes ideas to make the nation a better place. However, in this era when the world is going globalize in a very fast pace, this should be practiced to a small extent. People are having greater opportunity to interact with people of different cultural and religious backgrounds. As a result, we have to be cautious when making comments on issues regarding others, to make sure that we do not offend their beliefs and feelings to prevent conflicts. We need to respect the difference in races, culture, ideology and religions.

The world is going globalize every moment. People are no longer interacting only with people from their own communities, who hold the same ideologies as them, but also people from other communities. Advancement in information technology allows massages to be disseminated promptly to another end of the globe. Not only people from one’s world are reading it, but also people from other part of the Earth, who may disagree with what you say. Hence, we have to exercise more caution when making negative comments on topics like religions. We need to be more sensitive to others’ feelings and respectful to their beliefs than before. However, freedom of speech tends to overlook the importance of it because people are allowed to comment on anything under the sun without fearing of being charged. That is not desirable because radical emotions may be well provoked and conflicts are likely to be yielded. The effect may be far-reaching. The most recent example would the overwhelming protest in the Muslim world against the publication of a series of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad by a Denmark newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten. Many Muslim nations, which are steadfast in their stand to protect their religion and belief, break off diplomatic ties with Denmark and demand apologies from the Denmark government because the cartoons seriously defame Prophet Mohammad. Coordinated boycott of Demark goods have also been set up across Muslim regions. Its flags are being burnt and its diplomats are receiving death threat in many Muslim nations. From here, we can see that freedom of speech has damaged Denmark’s bilateral relations with many Muslim countries and severely hindered its economic development. It has also tarnished its national image. Denmark is a democratic nation, which advocates freedom of speech. We should not penalize it, as it is its policy of governance. However, more rights also mean more responsibilities. This right of freedom of speech should not be taken for granted. Obviously, the right of freedom of speech has been abuse by the newspaper to gain more profits for itself. It has not been sensitive to Muslims’ feelings and understanding to their beliefs. Hence, an individual should be allowed to practice freedom of speech to a small extent for the sake of peace.


Many nations nowadays are going multiracial. Technological development has boosted international migration. People of different ethnicities are having more chances to live together. As a result, right to freedom of speech should be controlled to prevent people from making irresponsible comments, putting the harmony of the nation at stake. For instance, Singapore has had two of its bloggers charged due to their racist remarks. It prohibits anyone to make such kind of remarks for fear of causing racial tension among different ethnic groups in the nation. While most western newspapers are busy reprinting the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad to show sense of solidarity, British newspapers are refraining from doing the same for fear of arousing unnecessary tension. British foreign also regards the publication as an “insulting”, “insensitive”, “disrespectful” and “wrong” act. Both Singapore and Britain are multiracial countries; they both understand that freedom of speech exercised by an individual may trigger clashes between races at any instance. Hence, they restrain this right. Thus, I believe that an individual should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech to a small extent, especially in multiracial countries, to protect racial harmony.

In addition, we are now in a special period of human time, when terrorist acts are rampant. As a result, we should be more mindful when expressing views on Islam, which has transformed into the world’s second largest region. We should bear religious sensitivities in mind all the time because there are radical people out there, who are preying for excuses, from “speeches of freedom”, to trample human life. Also, nowadays, the biggest player of this right of speech freedom is no other than the media. We should not be played onto their hands, as majority of them are profit driven. They are there mainly looking for scoops to make their business lucrative. The freedom of speech of these individuals has actually pushed more Muslim to become radicalized. It indirectly justified the terrorist’ movement of Jihad. Hence, an individual should be allowed to practice speech freedom to a small extent as long as the current situation is applied.

However, freedom of speech should be encourage in the terms of giving feedbacks to improve the development of an organization or a nation. In the national level, countries need its people’s opinions regarding the effectiveness of the policies launched so as to make prompt and appropriate improvements to protect people’s interest. In this way, people are given a stake in shaping the nation’s future. As a result, they would be more attached to the nation, as their participations are valued. I believe that this is the genuine purpose of a nation when it allows freedom of speech. For example, the Singaporean government has set up a Feedback Unit to collect people’s views on its policies to better govern the nation. Moreover, freedom of speech protects the right of whistle-blowers and helps induce more fairness in society. We need people to blow whistle at unjustified act conducted by a leader or an organization to protect publics’ interest and to protect workers’ right. This also helps to make people in society more law-abiding. Hence, freedom of speech should be greatly encouraged here.

In my conclusion, an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. Although, freedom of speech helps to generate feedbacks for improvement purpose, people tend to misuse this right. While assisting the enforcement of laws, it tends to create more injustice when people abuse the right by making irresponsible and insensitive remarks, which would trigger conflicts. People may take freedom of speech as their right to freely express themselves, including making jokes out of others’ belief and ideologies. In addition, since more nations are going multiracial in the face of globalization, we should restrain people right to freedom of speech to prevent tension from arising, to preserve the harmony in the country.

Issues on Abortion

Seto and Ser oppose the views that Teo has regarding the abortion of babies with disabilities. What are your views regarding this issue?

Abortion still remains an extremely controversial topic for discussion in most corners of the Earth. It is a tough issue as it concerns definition of life, which many people have different views upon and many cannot answer. It also challenges religious beliefs of many.

In my opinion, there is no definite answer to whether a severely disabled baby would be able to contribute to the society in the future, as no one can prognosticate what is going to happen in 20 years’ time. Mr. Teo is right in the sense that there is a high possibility that a severely disabled child would bring suffering to its family. I agree that if it were to be born, the family will be “financially strained on account of medical expenses” and extra investments that the family has to make, for instance, special equipments to ensure that they lead a life as normal as possible. Also, city planners have to include particular facilities and infrastructures, such as more lifts for defective people and ramps for wheelchair users, on their blueprints. In this sense, they indeed form a burden for the rest of the family members. Also, they pose a burden to the country. In addition, there is great possibility that they would be discriminated against in society. It would be cruel to bring them into the world only to letting them suffer. Critics mentioned that parents could always give children up for adoption. However, there is extremely low possibility that others would adopt a severely disabled child.

Mr. Felix Ser Cherk Yen commented that a child with Down’s syndrome could still learn how to draw well and contribute his physical labour. However, there is little chance that they would be employable. Majority of the population would relate disabilities, be it physical or metal, to low or even no productivity, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. We cannot ignore the fact that they do need special care and assistance in their daily work. Most companies are operating for profits and it is unlikely that they would be willing to pay to build special facilities for employees with defects. Although, there may be some companies, which take in disabled workers, they constitute the minority in society.

Therefore, based on this series of analysis, the government should consider legalizing the abortion of severely defected babies after 24 weeks of pregnancy so long as the mother’ life is not at risk. Moreover, legalization does not mean compulsory abortion of severely defective babies. It simply means that parents have a choice to carry on with the pregnancy or to terminate it. If the family is mentally and finically prepared for their arrival, and is willing to support and take care of the defected babies, no one would have the right to stop them from bring the babies into this world.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore the religious beliefs of many in Singapore. Christians worship sanctity of life. They believe that all lives are worthy of being taken care of and every person, including the fetus, irrespective of his/her health statuses, has the right to live. We cannot say that they are wrong or irresponsible for bringing a severely defective life into the world at the expense of other people’s interest and happiness. Everyone has a belief to follow, including Mr. Seto Hann Hoi and me. My religion teaches me to respect and value life. It forbids abortion as well because life begins at conception and it is a sin to destroy it. However, if we were to avoid emphasizing the religious influence on the issue on abortion, I would incline more towards Mr. Teo’s stand.

In Singapore, we may consider allowing people to vote to decide whether abortion of severely defected babies after 24 weeks of pregnancy when the mother’s life is not at risk since Singapore is a democratic nation.