Floods

I shall be talking about the recent floods in Singapore, and who was supposed to be responsible for it. This will be my last blog post for this term considering ACE deadline is by tonight midnight. And I know this was today's CA topic, but since I'm not involved and since I don't have to role-play any character, I'm airing my opinions on my blog, and my opinions should be quite fair.

Firstly, why did Orchard Road flood? Orchard Road had excellent canal and drainage systems, but on the day of the flood, though some sheer twist of fate, the torrential rain, which was said to have been more than 60% of the monthly rainfall for June in a single day, washed all the branches and rubbish into a main drain 2.7 meters in diameter drain and clogged it up, while the torrential rain then consequently flooded Orchard Road. This was the official statement that had been released by PUB following the flood, with them claiming that they had been completely caught off-guard by the flood. Millions of dollars was lost in the flood, with many shop vendors losing their stocks and having their shops destroyed by the flood, which was knee deep and even worse for basement levels.

Now with the summary of the incident behind, whose fault was it to blame then? Is it the government, the citizens, PUB or Mother Nature? Much of the debris that had contributed to the clogging up of the drain was the rubbish that had been strewn around Orchard Road. The rubbish contributed by the citizens shopping at Orchard Road and if it had not been for the rubbish, the drain may have not been clogged up, resulting in the prevention of this flood that had resulted in damages worth up to millions of dollars. So was it the inconsideration of citizens that had led to this flooding? Alas, PUB is at fault here as well. Should they had put up countermeasures to this scenario, or had performed checks more often on the drainage systems, the flood could have been prevented, or at least it would not have been as severe as this. But am I going on the wrong track? Most of the reasons I had laid down was based on the claims by PUB that the flood was because of the blocked drain. But shortly after this flood, another minor one happened again, and this time, all drains had been properly cleared. So, was the flooding not just because of that blocked drain, but also because of the inadequacies of our drainage and canal systems, despite the governments claims that they are world-class? I admit, that making Singapore flood free is practically impossible, and that we should be happy that our floods were relatively minor compared to that of China's, but one should always strive for the better, and so, the Government should think of ways to combat the increasing threat of flooding following increased climate change. Is our canal systems not good enough now? Do we have to sacrifice some space to construct more drains and canals so that future flood can be averted?

I leave you with this questions, and an interesting video on the flooding that I had found on Stomp. (It is a Hitler parody) http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/403170/hitler_hit_by_orchard_road_flood.html

Bijani Twins

I know this is quite an old topic, but after receiving a few article on this topic by our AAT teacher and asked to write a personal response on the matter, I decided I might as well post my personal response here for everyone to see. Feel free to argue and debate with me, I'm not always correct. As a matter of fact, I'm mostly wrong. This way, I can improve on my not-very-good personal response.

After I had read through all the 6 articles on the Bijani twins, I feel that all 6 of them have one main issue revolving around all of them – Was what the doctors did justified? The controversy mainly revolves around the fact that the doctors had taken on this operation knowing that there was only a 50% chance of them being saved and successfully separated. Some people feel that taking on the operation was a violation of part of the Hippocratic Oath, a violation of medical ethics in an attempt to push the boundaries of medical achievement. Others feel that what they did was justified, and that they did not violate medical ethics in the process. Here is what I thought about this incident and my opinions.

Personally, I feel that the doctors did no wrong and should not have been held accountable for what happened to the twins. They did what they were supposed to do; they tried their best in a marathon surgery more than 20 hours long. And it was by no means the doctor’s fault that the operation failed. The twins had full knowledge of the risks involved in such a surgery and they had agreed to it. With the patient’s consent, is it the doctor’s fault? If the doctors were to be held responsible for every single operation with a risk that failed, then no more operation would have been taken. What operation doesn’t carry a significant amount of risk? Take a brain surgery for example. There may be only 10% chance of the person’s survival, but do you not go through the operation, knowing the fact that its confirmed that you’ll die if you don’t? With the patient’s consent, the doctor’s should not be held responsible, as that was what the patients wanted and agreed to undertake. If you were to say this goes against the Hippocratic Oath, are you going to not do any operation with risks, even if the patient wants you to? So, on the issue of the Hippocratic Oath, I feel that it is outdated in the modern society. It should be changed to doctors should TRY THEIR BEST, instead of must.

Now onto the topic of violating medical ethics to push the boundaries of medical achievement. Ignoring whether what the doctor’s was ethical or not, would anything ever have been accomplished if we were to stick to the norms and never venture beyond what was considered acceptable? As the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Many medical accomplishments would never have been possible if we did not dare to take these risks. What the doctor did may have resulted in the death of the Bijani twins, but I’m sure the doctors gained much valuable knowledge in this operation, and this may result in the saving of thousands more people in the future.

Thus, I feel that what the doctors did was entirely justified, and that what they did may save many more lives in the future.

And that concludes this blog post.

Stomp Issue (These are only my opinions on the issue)

I haven't been active for quite some time now. But now I am back with a new blog post about the recent furore in our school about the Stomp issue.

For those who have been living under a rock or have been absent for these past 3 weeks or so, here is the background of the Stomp issue. During one particular morning, on the 19th of July when the HP students were attending the Asia-Pacific Young Leaders Summit, the tower block classrooms were left unlocked. And so when a passing teacher came by and saw this, he decided to give them a punishment by temporarily confiscating all the items that were left in the open. This was done so as to warn the students of what might have happened if someone other than the teachers had happened to pass by. The students were told to go and collect their items back soon after. But apparently one student was still not satisfied and he ended up posting the whole incident onto Stomp, resulting in many people insulting the school because of it. And yes, the student who posted it is my CCA senior. Or was my CCA senior.

Anyway, now onto my main point here. Was what the teacher did right? Was the student's action justified? Firstly, I shall talk about the teacher's actions. I know that the teacher had good intentions, but was confiscating them really necessary? This was asked in Assembly, but seeing how serious the atmosphere was, I decided not to risk going up to voice my opinions. Elvis did it and ended up being used as a reference by several teachers... Well, since now I'm not in assembly and being observed by the whole of Sec 2 and their form teachers, I guess I can express my opinions here. Here is what I feel about the saga :

What he did was a rash decision, as everyone know. Not only was he not affected by the confiscation, what he did harmed the school's reputation along with drawing plenty of insults to the students in general, such as "immature, bratty, nerdy and spoiled". What he did was a very selfish decision based on his own whims, which in turn had degraded the reputation of Hwa Chong and its students as a whole. But how he handled the situation aside, I would like to question whether the school really did the right thing in the confiscation of the items. Not only did this make some students feaar that they may have left their valuables somewhere else and probably make them search the whole school for it (I did that for my pencil box), making them miss some lessons in the process, it made the teachers seem like thieves, which had prompted the Stomp article (the student complained that teacher's actions were almost like thieves). Why the need to degrade the image of the teachers with such an act?! You can't break someone's house just to warn the owner of the house's lack of security, and even if this is disproved by our vice-principal, there could definitely have been a better way around for this situation. Yes, the students were warned before hand, but there could have been another way of punishing them, one that would have seemed more "teacher-like". For example, the warning had something like the banning of their rights to bring such valuables to school. This could have been implemented. Like, tell the students when they come back from the summit that they are banned for one day to bring their laptops and such, and that all inconveniences would have to be endured. I believe that this would serve as a better deterrent than confiscating it and returning it on the same day, scaring them for mere hours, and even worse made some students angry enough to post on Stomp.

But don't get me wrong, I do condemn what the student did, but what the teachers did was not entirely right either, and I believe that what the teacher did may have played a part in making the student post on Stomp. But even though I feel this way, the teacher did have all the right to confiscate their items, and thus no blame should be placed upon the teachers, while the students who had failed to lock their classrooms were partially responsible for this incident along with the student who posted on Stomp.

Now, I'm going to comment on what Elvis had said, like all the teachers had before me. Of course, what Elvis had stated, to have perfect trust among ourselves such that even if we left the door to our classes open, there is no need to fear because of our trust of our classmates. What I would like to say to Elvis is that what he stated is extremely idealistic. Obviously it would be for the best if what he said could be achieved, but the big question here is a what if. As a certain English teacher I had once said, trust takes very long to establish, but breaks very easily (or something along those lines.) So, to achieve what Elvis had said would be close to impossible, as what he had stated is what the whole world is trying to achieve.

Thank you.

LA E-Learning Assignment Task 2

The poem I chose is We Slept With Our Boots On by Steve Carlsen.

So now I shall attempt to complete the table in Annex A.

The Point of View of this poem is of that of a soldier. To be more accurate, he is a soldier fighting in a very recent war, most probably the Afghanistan War seeing that the writer had gone through the war. Also, his point of view is from a terrified soldier who despises war, seeing how he describes war as "hell". During the war, he experiences "terror he can't define". He is extremely involved in the war in the poem, being a soldier taking part in the war and constantly being showered by "lead rain", or also known as bullets. I think that I can trust the depiction of war from this author since he himself had been part of a war too.

Ah. I think I accidentally explained the Situation and Setting while I was describing the Point of View. But never mind. The setting is in the middle a battlefield, through "valleys and mountains", and the situation is that they are currently involved in a war, where many people are either "dead or maimed", and it was only because of some "divine reason" that the persona survived.

Next. The Language and Diction. The poem rhymes every 2 lines, so yeah. This is the diction part. As for the language, its rather crude, making this seem more like in a war, as in a war you have no time to properly phrase your words. Also, the sentences are short and two the point, and sometimes grammatically wrong. Some sentences are also rushed, like " Dirty and tired and hungry and scared", "Grab your shit" etc.

My personal response for this is that through this poem I have realized the horrors of war and how terrifying war can be and that it is not as cool like how we imagined. The crude words and long sentences add to the tension and the excellent imagery such as "lead rain" helps me visualize the situation and I feel like I'm in the persona's shoes. So, all in all, an excellent poem. But because of its difficulty ( 3 stars) I feel tthat maybe I did not grasp the core meaning of the poem.

Thank You.

LA E-Learning Assignment Task 1

I chose the poem We Slept With Our Boots On by Steve Carlsen.

We Slept With Our Boots On

They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell

Steve Carlsen

Well, a poem that is relatively less well-known, compared to those from Siegfried Sassoon I was researching on previously. Wikipedia doesn't have a page on him! The horror! I thought Wikipedia had everything. Apparently not. So, the ever-reliable Google took me to http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/2010warpoetry.html, and so here is the biography.

Steve Carlsen was born and lives in Dowagiac Michigan. He joined the United States Army in October 2000 and went to Infantry Basic Training, and Airborne School in Ft. Benning Georgia. He then reported to D Company 1st battalion 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. 82nd Airborne Division in Ft. Bragg North Carolina. He deployed to Kosovo in November 2001 as part of peace keeping operations. He Deployed to Afghanistan in of December 2002 where he participated in combat operations. He was honorably discharged from the Army in 2003. He currently attends Southwestern Michigan College where his professor, Dr Michael Collins challenged him to write about his experiences.

So, after looking through his life experiences, having been through the Afghanistan War, surely this war poem is about the war in Afghanistan, and the needless loss of lives, one of the ever present themes in most war poems, will be inside. And as expected, this poem criticizes the Afghanistan War. So, now that we have understood the main theme and conflict of the poem, which is Task 1, lets move on to the next part of the E-Learning Assignment, Task 2. Look out for my next blog post.

MoE's new Chinese policy change

Recently, MoE announced that there is going to be a new change in the weighting of Chinese Language in which the weighting of Chinese in PSLE will be reduced. I strongly disapprove of this new policy change.

Didn't our teachers always say to us, that all subjects are equal, and that we have to spent equal effort on each of the subjects? Why the sudden change? What do you think will happen if you reduced the weighting of Chinese in PSLE will be reduced? Nobody will study as hard for Chinese anymore. Lets say if the weighting of Chinese were to be reduced to 50%, nobody will study as hard for a subject in which even if you get full marks, you get only half as much as getting full marks in another subject. So if we reduce the weighting of Chinese, the natural reaction of all P6 students and their parents will be to put less emphasis on Chinese and to put more emphasis on the other subjects. This is ridiculous, as it totally undermines the importance of the Chinese Language in our society. And why specifically mention reduce Chinese? What about the other Mother Tongues? Singapore has been encouraging us to study Chinese well just a few months ago, so why the sudden change in policy? Quite ironic, no? Also, do they not know the possible implications of this? China is becoming a stronger economic country by the day, and even foreign countries are studying Chinese, and knowing how important Chinese might be to us in the future, reducing the weighting of Chinese and making people take Chinese less seriously couldn't have came at a worst time. Admittedly, there are people who do badly at Chinese and their grades get dragged down by it because they do not have the background, but if Singapore is reducing the weighting of Chinese because of that, I recommend that Singapore look at the case of the new PSLE scholar. She did not have any background in English, and having came from China at P5, she had just 3 years ( she had to repeat P5), but she still managed to get and A* in English, and A* in Math and Science paper although both the papers were set in English. Now, students in Singapore have 6 years to learn and master Chinese, and there's only one paper in which it is set in Chinese, so I don't get how Singapore student's cannot do well in Chinese. And even if they can't, it doesn't warrant a reduce in the weighting of Chinese. Or is it because the PSLE is being dominated by students from China and Singapore wants to change this by reducing the weighting of Chinese, thus dragging down the students from China? If that is the case, then the government seriously needs to reconsider.

Opinions?

TKAM Test

On a slightly more personal and more positive note, I'm happy to say that I have finally achieved A1 for Literature for the first time in my life! Though its a bit too late for the Math, Chinese and Narrative test, I would like myself to stick to this famous quote

" Genius is 50% perspiration and 50% pure talent."

- Said in 24/4/2010 by Zhang Jin Lin

So maybe I should work harder from now on, and convert 20% of my time into studying time. I'm sure this is going to be a boost to my confidence, albeit slightly, and isnpire me to more A1s!

War

War. This word encapsulates a lot. Suffering. Explosions. Death. Birth of psychopaths( Hitler). New ways to kill. Dismembered bodies. Broken families. Broken dreams. Broken lives.

Out of all the above, there is nothing positive about war. So why then, do we start wars? Why then do we partake in this act of destruction? Is it human nature? Is it unavoidable? What will happen if another major war happened?

The world had gone through several wars and lived through it, such as World War I, World War II, the Gulf War.... The list is endless. But we survived through it all. Through every single war, new ways to kill each other have been created. Through every single war, more people die in the next. So what will happen if we experience a World War III? With nuclear bombs, biological bombs, hydrogen bombs.... Will the world be destroyed? We probably won't be able to survive through another war. But all that is preventing us from attacking one another right now is the fear of being attacked by the allies of the countries you attack, or being attacked by the UN. So all this can be broken with just a country stupid enough to attack another country, which will start off a whole world war, as the whole world right now is being interlinked by alliances. This is just like how World War I started, but the stakes this time is way higher. Nuclear war may erupt if war happens, and you and I may all die. So what exactly had led us to this stage? What has made us to this precarious situation?

The Kaiser started World War I because he wanted more land, more power, and he subsequently failed, having not learned at all from the failures of other warmongers. Hitler, even worse, started another war shortly after the World War I, even though as a soldier, he himself personally witnessed the carnage of war. Maybe there will always be someone within us who will start war. So, if war is inevitable, maybe I should prepare myself for an incoming World War III? Being pessimistic.... Maybe someone close to me may probably start a war in the future. I sure hope it'll never come to that. I know enough of the horrors of war to think that its cool. But the above picture is pretty cool though, if a little..... horrifying. Try imagining hundreds of those rain down on Earth....

Any opinions?

The Starving of Sudan

After a long, long time, I'm posting for the first time in Term 2. This time I will be writing about the controversial photo above, taken by Kevin Carter, known as the Starving of Sudan.

I'm sure that if this is your first time looking at the photo, you would have been shocked by several elements present in the photo. Firstly, the girl in the photo is from Sudan, a country who was extremely impoverished and torn by civil war at that time. People were starving, and though aid packages were being sent there to help the citizens of Sudan, children who were separated from their parents could not get food because of all the stronger adults snatching for the food supplies. So sights like this were very common there, but people outside of Sudan did not totally grasp the severity of the situation there because Sudan was pretty much closed off from the outside world. Then, two reporters were sent to Sudan to take photos of the situation there. One of them, Kevin Carter, came across a girl who was crawling towards an aid station for food, while an eagle was eying her hungrily from a distance. Kevin Carter thought this to be a wonderful photo opportunity, and after a while, captured the photo, chased off the eagle and drove off, leaving the girl to fend for herself. This is the background of the story of this photo. A bit shocking, isn't it? But this is just the first half.

Now, the first question that comes to our mind is that what happened to Kevin Carter? He brought the photo back, and the photo won the Pulitzer Prize. The photo was published in the New York Times, and that photo shocked the whole world. Before long, people who started to ask where and what happened to the girl. But Kevin Carter did not know, as he left the girl alone after taking the photo, thus drawing heavy criticism from people. Why did he not rescue the girl when the girl was just there, when he could have took her on his car and sent her to an aid station, thus saving her life? Does he have no regard for human life? Does he think that the photo, the prize money was more important? While it was true that he needed money then, but he had already gotten the photo, so why did he not save the girl? So why did he leave the girl for dead? After a while of severe criticism, he committed suicide, leaving a note saying, "I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky."

So this is the background story of this incident. Now I'm going to discuss on the moral issues of this case.

Kevin Carter was lacking money then. He was desperate for money. When someone gets desperate, he is capable of almost anything. But this does not explain the situation at hand. He already had the photo, and he could have both saved the girl and got the reward at the same time. So why didn't he? According to him, he was not sure what made him do that, and he also did not explain the situation very carefully, so maybe what happened at that place was different from what all of us was different. Now that both of the people who were involved in the incident are dead, we can never know what had happened. Maybe the girl was already beyond saving? Or maybe it was just that he had already seen too much of this type of situations and that he had already closed off his heart, and thinks that no matter how many he saves, there will always be more. But if this was really the case, he should have known that life is precious, and that saving one life is good enough. So, I will end off with this conclusion, that what he did was not justified and against what we call human nature., but once humans have been exposed to the cruelty's of the world, we will understand that what we call human nature, is actually the total opposite of what we humans usually behave like. To all those people who have criticised him, are you sure you are any different? Do you agree?

E- Learning - Intra-personal Task C : Jem's Diary

Dear Diary,

Today is a day I want to forget. Did it really happen? What I had trusted for so long, what I believed in, crumbled before my very eyes today. Justice. Just what exactly is justice? I used to believe that justice can never be wrong. They'll never wrongly accuse someone. But this false believe crumbled today. I arrived at the court full of hope. All of us know that Tom Robinson is innocent. All the arguments put forth by Dad was also accurate, while the opposition's lawyer had no logical point at all! But all because Tom Robinson is a black and Mayella Ewell is a white, Tom Robinson was judged guilty by the jury. What rubbish is this! They all know. They know! But yet, their prejudice and racism towards blacks clouded their judgement. What happened to truth? What happened equality? Justice for all? All this is coming under ridicule after I witnessed this trial. There is no true equality in the world. The winners, the majority get the priority treatment. The losers, the minority get ridiculed, and suffer less-than-human treatment. There is no justice. What is the world turning into at this rate? The world is corrupt.But I will, and I hope that one day I can change this. God bless Tom Robinson, who was treated unfairly for the whole of his life.

Jem Atticus Finch.

E- Learning - Linguistic Task 2 : News Report on Tom Robinson's Trial

JUSTICE IS SERVED

Tom Robinson is convicted of rape

Maycomb County - The case of the rape Mayella Ewell has finally come to a close. The jury has responded with an overwhelming response. Guilty! Thomas Robinson has been convicted of rape, as everyone knew he would. Somehow, Tom Robinson has managed to get the help of renowned lawyer, Atticus Finch.
Trying desperately to save his client, Atticus Finch hammered poor Mayella Ewell with questions such as,"Did you scream first at your father instead of at Tom Robinson? Was that it?" followed closely by "Who beat you up? Tom Robinson or your father?". With his argument of Bob Ewell beating his own daughter, Mayella Ewell was at a loss for words and soon burst into tears and kept silent for the remainder of the case.
A member of the jury proclaimed triumphantly after the trial, " Justice has prevailed! That nigger, who has committed such a heinous crime will be duly punished!"
Another member of the jury was shaking his head with disbelief at Atticus' defense of Tom Robinson, " A nigger lover! He brings shame on all of us! Don't expect us to treat him with respect anymore!"
Atticus, before hearing the judgement, left the court hurriedly. Before he left, he whispered something in a young reporter;s ears. Whatever it is, he seemed really dejected at losing the case. This must have been a huge blow to his reputation. Tom Robinson will be appealing, but it will most likely be hopeless. -AFP

MI test.

Well, I took my Multi-Intelligence test and realised that my multiple intelligence lies in the area of intra-personal and linguistic. Well, the intra-personal part came as a shock, but the linguistic part was kind of expected. ( Especially after reducing my sister to tears by just "debating with her. Okay nevermind that." I've been known to talk a lot, though not always very word smart. I like using "bombastic" words in my composition, but only because it gives me higher marks. I don't really like literature, as it is the hardest subject to understand. Wait, so why am I linguistic again?And why am I intra-personal? I thought was a very selfless person, so very noble, helping everyone without regard for my own interests......

This quiz has a problem.

Casino

Well, Singapore has completed building one of the 2 casinos at Resorts World Sentosa now. Prior to building the casino, it was said to be able to bring in more tourists to Singapore and create more jobs. More people get employed, and the Government earns more money from tourists and rich Singaporeans. Or at least this was what the Government hoped for and the messages they were sending out. What is their response to those who are afraid their friends, kin or themselves might get addicted? They set up a Problem Gambling Counselling Centres ( Not really sure what its called) in which people who are addicted can get themselves counselled and kick the habit of gambling, and they also put up advertisements discouraging gambling addiction. So far, there appears to be no problems with building a casino right? Surely there will be no problems with building a casino.

But when we look closer into the issue of building a casino, is there really no problems with building two casinos in Singapore? Well, sure, there might have been a lot of tourists and visitors at the casino on the opening day, but wouldn't it just go down hill afterwards, as the opening day was on Chinese New Year, so most of the tourists didn't come just to see the casino, but because they wanted to visit friends or relative and thought they might just go and see the over-hyped casino that was under construction in Singapore. After the Chinese New Year, they probably won't come to Singapore again just for the casino. Also, since the Casino was so over-hyped, there must have been a lot of tourists who came and visited just out curiosity. Since Singapore opened the casino early during the Chinese New Year holidays because of greed, the Casino was badly managed. People have been complaining on the internet on poor management and long queues. This makes the tourists who come here with extremely high expectation leave disappointed. Opening a casino will attract more tourists to Singapore? The reverse, more likely.

Also, the issue of creating more jobs. Of course a casino will create more jobs. But what about the people who get addicted? They lose their jobs, they lose their money. And in worst case scenarios, they may lose their lives and their families. Is it worth it? Just how many jobs can 2 casinos create? Compare it to the number of jobs people might lose if a casino opened. No, TWO casinos opened. Many more people may addicted and lose their jobs. Is it worth it? Okay, you might say that Singapore opened Problem Gambling Counselling Centres ( Not really sure what its called) especially for this. But how many people will really go there to get counselled? If you really are addicted, you wouldn't want to go and kick the habit. You like gambling. You want to gamble. Why would you voluntarily go and get yourself counselled? The Counselling Centres will probably have a very small impact on gambling addicts.

I strongly condemn the building of the casino, but since Singapore has already built it, I shall carry on my own silent protest - by not visiting it.