This is me...

The motion was "Euthanasia" and the proposition team was made up of the Singapore Alumni Team, who had previously represented Singapore in the International Worldwide Debate last year, and attained admirable results. The opposition on the other hand, consisted of the Singapore National Team; they will be honourably proceeding to Qatar later this year for the inaugural competition I had just mentioned and hopefully, let history repeat itself and do Singapore proud.

What made the debate so intriguing for us Hwa Chongians was that amidst an RI dominating team, Ng Li Ki, the former president of the 36th High School Council of Hwa Chong Institution managed create this unprecedented scenario in these few years and emerge as one of the prominent debaters in the official Singapore team. Along with the cheering crows and enthusiastic commotions, the debate commenced when the chairperson elucidated the flow of the debate.

There were three speakers on either side and each speaker only had a total of 8 minutes to debate on the issue. At the 8th minute, the chairperson will ring the bell, signing to speaker that he should wrap up his speech and conclude his salient points in the next 15 seconds.

Throughout the debate, the proposition mainly revolved around the topics on the the patient's dignity and the true meaning of Euthanasia. The proposition believed that if a patient was suffering from a terminally chronic illness, this patient has the right and should be greatly encourage or motivated in bringing out the request to the doctor for Euthanasia treatment. They thought that it was indeed cruel and immoral to let the patient live on, as what he experiences would be anguish instead of hope. This would also cause unnecessary psychological and financial burdens to the patient's family. The proposition saw the existence of Euthanasia as a kind of "mercy" for those who suffer, like the "mercy" that law bestows to the mentally ill or ailing patients; it symbolised respect and giving the patient freedom.

Contrarily, the opposition questioned the proposition on the definition of the phrase "chronic illness" and also emphasised on the the important value of life and the subsistence of hope. They believed that medical science is advancing rapidly nowadays and many "terminally chronic illnesses" thought-to-be last time, had become an easily curable sickness today, such as leukemia and tuberculosis. If patient mistakenly chosen Euthanasia and ended his life, regrets would be his only emotions when he realised how foolish he had been. The opposition also mentioned rare cases when a guy in coma for decades miraculously woke up, just 20 minutes before his family decided to unplug his breathing tubes. They believed that no matter how small the chance may be, one should never give up hope: "When there is probability, when there is hope; one should always air to the side of life instead of death".

The main issue that the proposition and oppositions argue fiercely is practically the chance of a patient being cured when he contacted a terminally chronic illness and humanity. The opposition supposed that if there was one special case when a patient successfully triumphed the chronic illness, then all other patients with the same illness must follow suit and face the situation optimistically and should not give up, no matter what kind of obstacles lie on their path towards success, because there would be a cure developed at the end of a day in the future. However, the proposition strongly rebutted on the opposition's view. The latter thought that this was very cruel as there would not always be a guarantee of the breakthrough of medial sciences in every situation and patients who are not that lucky would suffer in agony when he met with the above-mentioned situation. In addition, the opposition mentioned that most patients could not make a reasonable and rational decision as they were influenced by anaesthesia daily and thus, their want to end their lives should not be entertained. The proposition treated this thinking as disrespect to the patients and robbing away their human rights and dignity.

I personally think that one's life value has absolutely nothing to do with the span with his/her life. If a person can live carefreely and sparkingly every day, it is already the biggest gift from God...

So, what is "mugging"? "Mug" from

any dictionary is just another synonym for a cup. But the "mug" we are talking about here is a rather derogatory word to mean revision. People who are regarded to be "muggers" usually achieve constant good grades, mostly because they are hardworking and dilligent enough to complete the assignments that the teachers instructed the class to do cautiously and delicately.

So after the Chinese New Year celebration concert, I decided to head to the junior college side and take a look at their festive food fair. When I was got there, I was taken by surprise to see the huge crowd of people with their banners and boards held up high, together with the enthusiastic yells to invite the sea of business at their sight. It was colourful. Blue, red, yellow with green; the four houses for the junior college all named with their first letter "a". It looked something like these...

Isn't it a visual treat just by looking? What a grand and joyous event!

Have you ever seen the middle age group (35-45 yrs old) or old aunties and uncles (45-65 yrs old) competing for seats when the public transport you take is crowded? Do you actually know why must they do so? How do you feel when juveniles like us refuse to give up our seats to the old folks?

Hi, once again, I believe every one of you has seen these two scenarios and mostly, they occur during the morning and evening peak hours. I will try to re-enact verbally the three most common scenes in a bus at 6.20 am.

Scenario 1

Bus is congested with commuters, students and some old people. Seats are all taken and May, a housewife at the age of 47 clings on to a pole, desperately wanting to sit. The bus halts and a lot of passengers alights. Relieved, May quickly gets herself to an ideal seat and dozes off...

Scenario 2

Bus is congested with commuters, students and some old people. Seats are all taken and May, a housewife at the age of 47 clings on to a pole and Mark, a Secondary 3 student who grabs the hand-grip are desperately wanting to sit. The bus halts and one passenger left his seat and alights. May took hold of the opportunity and sat down before Mark reacted. May dozes off while Mark grudges a little bit...

Scenario 3
Bus is congested with commuters, students and some old people. Seats are all taken and May, a housewife at the age of 47 clings on to a pole and Mark, a Secondary 3 student who grabs the hand-grip are desperately wanting to sit. The bus halts and one passenger left his seat and alights. Mark took hold of the opportunity and sat down before May reacted. Mark dozes off while May grudges a little bit and feels unhappy.

That's about it. Basically to the issue why the older generations are so mindful of a place to sit is because all of them have experience a long and tiring day of work and really want to rest. Their body are not as fit as ours, as youths. In the early morning, they probably need to re-charge a little bit more to gain more sleep so as to be more alert during work. I really think that youths should give up their seats to older people and also not to compete for seats with them as it is quite rude and shows that one has a lack of basic courtesy.

As the "Phua Chu Kang" campaign poster in the bus says "Give up your seat to those that need it more."

Hi guys,