Sec: Cell phones must be banned in schools. What are your views?

With the advent of cell phones, school students have been bringing such devices to school.

This, however, has been a cause of concern for many.

Some feel that having a cell phone would cause the students to be distracted and this might affect their studies and should be banned in schools. However, other believe that cell phone should be allowed since they can help students in their learning.

Personally, I feel that cell phones should not be banned in school because of its many useful functions but there must be some restrictions to control its usage to prevent it from distracting the students unnecessarily.

Firstly, it is a well-known fact that cell phones have many applications that could facilitate learning.

For example, in the past, if a student needed to find definitions of words, he would have to use a dictionary. This was cumbersome and a lot of time was wasted. However, now, with the use of smart-phones, students could easily download dictionary applications, such as dictionary.com, to help them find the meanings of difficult words. This helps to the student to shorten his learning time.

Similarly, there are also other useful applications that could help the students. For example, some would agree that Internet is like a gargantuan library where one can find all sorts of information. One useful website is the Wikipedia where students can use their smart-phones to do research on their projects. This is far more convenient for the student as he would not need to travel to the library to do so.

As discussed above, it is not difficult to see that the use of mobile phones should not be banned in schools.

However, some argue that bringing the cell phones to school would cause students to be distracted from their learning.

For example, many students like to go on facebook to update their current statuses, check their notifications and reply to messages. While some do it discreetly, others check every few minutes and have become addicted to it. Some even chat in class using applications such as Whatsapp and Viber.

This prevents them from paying attention in class and listening to important concepts and skills that would be useful to help them understand crucial information and facts that could enable them to secure high academic grades.

Since students do get distracted, clear boundaries should be drawn on mobile phone usage.  There should be clear rules on how and when to use the cell-phones in school. For instance, cell-phones should be switched off or on silent mode during lessons. They should only be used if the teacher allows the students to do so. Students who break the rules would have their phones confiscated for a period of time.  These measures are important to help the teacher teach better without unneccessary distractions of the mobile phones.

 

In conclusion, I feel that cell phone should not be banned in schools . It should be allowed to be used to facilitate learning but there must be some clear restrictions on when and how to use them. It is believed that in the coming future, the mobile phones would even replace school books for all the notes and homework would be stored inside them.

Ban children under 16 from buying pets, says SPCA

By Feng Zengkun

Children aged under 16 should be banned from buying pets, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) said on Friday.
These youngsters may not have the maturity or money to take care of them properly, the group added.
They are also more prone to impulse buying, which could lead to pets being abandoned once the novelty wears off.
The recommendation was one of several proposed changes to the law contained in a draft document released by the society on Friday. Others include doubling the maximum penalty for people who abuse animals, banning them from keeping pets in exceptional cases, and publishing a list of what counts as animal cruelty.

Sec: Don't judge a book by its cover

‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is such a common idiom.  It means that we should not form opinion of people or things just on the surface but we must look deeper instead.  However, how many of us actually practice it?  Not many, I assume.  The reason is partly because we form ideas of people within a very short time.  In the first few minutes, we would probably have decided whether we like what we see – the dressing, the accent, the looks and so forth.

Yet, by judging too superficially and quickly, we usually do not form accurate opinions of people.  We may actually lose many potential friendships just because the person that we have met do not impress us enough.  Nice but ordinary people just come and leave our lives just because they do not look nice, pretty, cool or sophiscated in the first place.  Take a look at Susan Boyle who first appeared on ‘British Got Talent’.  By her frumpy appearance , her age and her rather rotund figure, we would probably have dismissed her as a dreamer who wanted to be a star. How could this woman ever sing?  However, when she started to sing, her most endearing voice had captured the audience’s attention.  This is one clear example on why we should not judge a book by its cover.

Besides judging people too quickly and forming a shallow impression of others, judging others simply by their appearance also mean that we are placing greater importance on their appearance than their inner character.  We often hear people say, “Look at her dressing.  I wish I can dress like her,” but we usually do not think about whether that person’s character would have a positive influence in our lives.  We only want to look good on the outside but looking good on the inside is of far more importance than the outside.  Friends with upright character can move us in the positive direction.  They make us a better person inside us.  Friends who only look good on the outside but not on the inside may influence us to be materialistic and cause us to pretend to be someone that we are not.  Even if we manage to get a job because we dress well, we may not stay in that job because of our negative character traits.

Finally, the fear of rejection and the desire for acceptance are so powerful that people would do anything to their appearance to get people to like them or at least, not to dislike them.  By caring too much on our outer appearance, we would end up becoming overly zealous about our looks and dressing.  Many Koreans, including men, indulge in beauty to such an extent that they would go under knife so that they could like a certain actor or actress.  Millions of won are spent just to look good.  Look at Michael Jackson.  He was so particular about his looks that he had many plastic surgeries to bleach his skin, alter his nose and so forth.  Sadly, though many may like his music, not many can accept his altered look.   How good it would be if our judgement of people is not based on looks but the heart?

If this world can really learn not to judge the book by its covers, people would be able to befriend friends who have a positive influence in their lives even if they may not look good.  Our character would also be moulded positively and finally, we would live a nicer place where friendships are made  based on character rather than looks. Wouldn’t it be a better place to live in then?

Sad Poem
http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/sad/poems.php?id=782585

Articles
http://www.articlesbase.com/advice-articles/dont-judge-a-book-by-its-cover-3456844.html
http://www.xomba.com/dont_judge_book_its_cover
http://articles.mibba.com/People/822/Dont-Judge-A-Book-By-Its-Cover-Stereotyping

Countries with the highest death penalty rates

By Gaby Leslie | Yahoo! News – 23 hours ago

As the ninth World Day against the Death Penalty raises the awareness of the inhumanity of the law and calls for an end to capital punishment - we take a look at the five countries that carried out the most executions last year.

The latest statistics from Amnesty International show that of the 58 countries which retain the death penalty, 23 of them carried out at least 527 executions (excluding China) in 2010 and at least 67 imposed death sentences. Last year only one country, Gabon, scrapped the death penalty, becoming the 139th country to ban it.

1. China

Officially the country with the highest population, China has remained the top executioner of the world since records began with an estimated 2000 executions carried out last year – more than the rest of the world put together, a recent report by Amnesty reveals. However, the real number of death sentences and executions are skewed as all aspects of capital punishment remain a state secret.

Scarily, even non-violent white-collar crimes such as embezzlement and fraud may also warrant an execution in China. A recent judicial review removed issuing false tax invoices, robbing ancient ruins, and smuggling rare animals from the list of crimes punishable by death.

Two cases of wrongful conviction got widespread coverage in China in 2005. A butcher who was executed for murder in 1989 turned out to be innocent when his alleged victim was found alive; while a man was freed after 11 years in jail when his wife, whom he was accused of killing, was also found alive. The main methods of execution are death by firing squad and the lethal injection.

2. Iran

Although execution figures significantly fell from 714 in 2009, 252 executions took place in the Middle Eastern country last year. This included five women and one juvenile with 14 people executed. Despite the lower figures, Amnesty International said that 300 of the executions were not publicly acknowledged.

In Iran, crimes don’t have to be violent to warrant an execution. Homosexuality, blasphemy and adultery also warrant punishments by death. For example, Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani – a Christian pastor living in Tehran – has been making the headlines because the Muslim-born man faces execution for failing to denounce his Christian faith before the Iranian supreme court.

The methods used by Iran have ranged from beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and various kinds of shooting by firing squad. Videos of stoning have previously been smuggled out of Iran where a person’s movements are restricted and an organised group throws stones at them until they are dead. Women are known to have been stoned for offences like adultery.

3. North Korea

Public capital punishment is common in North Korea. According to official Amnesty International statistics, 60 people were executed in 2010. The typical method of execution is by firing squad. Although the numbers have recently been declining as North Korea faces international criticism over its record on human rights, in an extreme case in 2007, a pensioner was shot by firing squad in front of 170,000 people at a football stadium. Six people were crushed to death and thirty-four others injured in a stampede as they left the stadium. Treason against the fatherland and treason against the people under Korean law are also punishable by death.

An Amnesty media release highlighted the people executed for crimes that were “not commonly considered criminal, or after unfair procedures”. It said: “A 75 year-old North Korean factory manager was shot by firing squad in October for failing to declare his family background, investing his own money in the factory, appointing his children as its managers and making international phone calls.”

[Talking politics: After Amanda Knox, the capital punishment debate is over]

4. Yemen

In Yemen, 57 people were executed in 2010, with shooting the main method of execution. Unlike the conventional methods of shooting by firing squad in other countries, Yemen publicly kills the offender by laying them on the ground while a single executioner shoots them through the heart with an automatic rifle. The country came under fire after juveniles have been placed on death row including one in 2010. In the past, the Middle Eastern country has been known to impose the death penalty on mentally ill people.

5. USA
A well-known liberal democracy, the USA put 47 people to death last year and handed out at least 110 death sentences. However, this number represents only about a third of the number handed down in the mid-1990s. The country is the only one on our top five list that reserves punishment by death for murder.

In March 2011, Illinois became the 16th US state to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is a highly contentious issue in the United States and the policy came under fire last month when Troy Davis, of Georgia, received the lethal injection for killing an off-duty police officer in 1989. Anti-death penalty campaigners claim there is little evidence to support the execution.

The electric chair and the lethal injection are the most widely practiced methods of execution with one death by firing squad in Utah. Texas is, by far, the leader in executions, with 17 carried out in 2010. If Texas were its own country, it would have been tied for eighth in the world with Syria.

Countries that still retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

Asia-Pacific Executions in 2010

Afghanistan
Bangladesh 9
Japan 2
India
Indonesia
Malaysia 1
Mongolia
Pakistan
Singapore
Taiwan 4
Thailand
Viet Nam

Africa
Botswana 1
Chad
Comoros
Democratic Republic of Congo
Equatorial Guinea 4
Ethiopia
Guinea
Lesotho
Libya 18
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Somalia 8
Sudan 6
Uganda
Zimbabwe

Europe

Belarus 2

Middle East

Bahrain
Egypt 4
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Palestinian Authority 5
Saudi Arabia 27
Syria 17
Qatar
United Arab Emirates

The Americas and the Caribbean

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cuba
Dominica
Guatemala
Guyana
Jamaica
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago

Sec: Singapore to decide on Yong’s clemency appeal

By Andrew Loh | SingaporeScene

President Tony Tan is expected to hand down his decision on the clemency appeal from death row inmate Yong Vui Kong anytime now.

Yong, a Malaysian caught in 2007 for trafficking in 47.27g of heroin into Singapore, submitted his appeal in July this year. Originally scheduled to be hanged in December 2009, Yong's execution has been stayed for almost 2 years now, thanks to the work of his lawyer, M Ravi.

Yong's predicament has attracted international attention and much has been said about his case.
It is now up to the president to decide — or more accurately, the Cabinet to decide. In 2010, the courts in Singapore ruled that the president has no authority to decide on clemency appeals, and that he is obliged to adhere to the Cabinet's decision.

This brings us to the question which some have asked: do members of the Cabinet know who they are sending to the gallows — and are they aware of how many are sent to their deaths each year?

The discomfort I feel is that we have empowered the authorities to execute those as young as 18, including girls. Andrew Loh

If it is the Cabinet which decides on clemency appeals, one would hope that members of the Cabinet would at least be aware of such facts. And accordingly, deliberations on appeals would be scrutinised in detail and the solemn decision taken.

However, even as recently as 2003, doubts have appeared and questions raised about precisely the issue of whether members of the Cabinet are indeed cognisant of certain facts of the number sent to their deaths.

How did former PM get data wrong?
In 2003, then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong, in an interview with the BBC, revealed that the number of people executed that year was "in the region of about 70 to 80". Two days after Goh made that startling disclosure, the government issued a correction and said the number was ten.
It is a mile and more between 10 and 70 to 80.

How did the prime minister, no less, get it wrong so badly? If the Cabinet, of which he headed, deliberates on each clemency appeal, should he not have had a better idea of how many executions were carried out each year? Clemency appeals are, by law, automatic in death penalty cases. This means the Cabinet, and Goh, would know how many times a case passes through their desk for consideration for pardon.

70 to 80 cases in a year would mean between 5.8 to 6.7 clemency appeals per month would have to be considered by each member of the Cabinet.

So, the question remains to this day: are clemency appeals indeed deliberated on and considered by the Cabinet? If so, how did the then prime minister get the numbers wrong?
One may say that this was a long time ago, in 2003. But the point is this: if we are to send inmates, which include girls as young as 18 and boys like Yong who was 19 when he was arrested, to the death chamber we must be absolutely sure that our leaders responsible for taking these lives take their responsibilities seriously.

Is every one of our present Cabinet ministers aware of the provisions in the various laws and statutes which empower them and the courts to send someone to death? Is each minister aware of the presumption provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act, for example? I am not so sure they are.
But my objection to the death penalty is the mandatory part of it, at least for now. I do hope for the total abolition of the death penalty in time to come. But for now, I am more disturbed by the mandatory requirement of the death sentence for particular crimes.

No restitution for the innocent
The discomfort I feel is that we have empowered the authorities to execute those as young as 18, including girls. I find it unconscionable that teenagers, which those 18-year olds are, can be and have been hanged in the name of punishment and deterrence which, for the most part, has not been proved beyond doubt.

I am not advocating that the hanging age be raised. I am, however, saying that we need to relook the mandatory requirements of certain laws. And this is not just because of the age issue but also that making death mandatory — where the judges have no choice but to send someone to death if he or she is found guilty of the relevant crime committed — means there is no possibility of restitution if one was hanged and found innocent later.

The recent case of Ismil Kadar comes to mind. He escaped mandatory death, after having spent six years in jail and on death row, only because of the persistence of his legal aid lawyer.
How many more Ismil Kadars languish in our jails presently?

Or Zai Kuning, who also was sentenced to mandatory death for murder only to be found not guilty later — by the sheer coincidence and luck in another inmate boasting about how he had committed the murder instead and how the police had "got the wrong man in jail".

It was the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam who then informed the authorities which then proceeded to investigate the matter. Eventually, Zai Kuning was exonerated of the crime and released.
Those who support the death penalty and the mandatory death penalty need to seriously consider these examples of those innocent ones who were tried in court, sentenced to death, denied clemency appeals and scheduled to be hanged — and saved only by pure luck or through the dogged persistence of the rare few lawyers in Singapore who would dedicate years to such cases.

Opportunity to break from past
President Tony Tan, or more accurately, the Cabinet, has a golden opportunity now to stay Yong's execution under a moratorium and to relook the legal provisions and practices for mandatory death sentences, and indeed reconsider the application of the death penalty itself.

With a reconstituted Cabinet, the current prime minister has a clean slate to break away from the folly of the past. To miss this opportunity would be to continue to bury his head in the sand and hope to see no evil and hear no evil, as it were.

Singapore needs desperately indeed to bring itself in line with international consensus, which is towards the abolition of the death penalty, and the scrapping of the mandatory death penalty.
The mandatory one, especially, has no place in a society which professes itself to be first world.
Not when it continues to kill, in cold blood, teenagers.

And not when its former prime minister brushes off, rather callously, inquiries about the number of executions carried out by his government — as Goh did in 2003.

"I have got more important issues to worry about," he said.