Commentary test- Deafness Due To Electronic Devices

1. The central issue raised by the article is that some people, especially youngsters, are so glued to their cell phones, iPods, and other electronic devices that they become oblivious to their surroundings. These people pay too much attention to their entertainment devices, adopting an indifferent attitude, and are a danger to the public and to themselves. This will lead to a higher risk of accidents occurring. The causes for the risk of accidents rising is because the electronic devices will cause reaction time to be reduced significantly and also because these electronic devices act as a distraction to them.

2. Deafness due to electronic devices
Just a week ago, on the way home from school, I was cycling along a particularly busy street. I spotted a teenager in front of me, and started ringing my bicycle bell to signal for him to step aside. However, the teenager did not react in any way. I then realized that he was listening to music on his iPod, and texting messages on his cell phone. In the end, I had to swerve sharply to the side in order to avoid him.

Let’s face facts: The usage of electronic devices by pedestrians is wrong as it can cause accidents to occur. This is because through the use of electronic devices, the reaction time of a person can decrease significantly and the person will be greatly distracted as well.

Firstly, the use of electronic devices such as cell phones and music players can actually reduce a person’s reaction time. For example, the RAC Foundation, a British non-profit organization, found that sending messages while driving simultaneously reduced reaction time by 35 percent. That means that a person sending text messages would take one-third more time to react. Also, in an experiment conducted by the Sunday Times, when thirty pedestrians texting messages were deliberately walked into by reporters, five pedestrians bumped into the reporters, and six dodged them only at the last minute. This shows that their reaction time was reduced due to them being absorbed in their message texting. A reduced reaction time is certainly an open invitation for accidents to occur. In the unfortunate occurrence of an accident, the pedestrian would need to be sharp and alert, and they need to be on their toes to prevent an accident from happening. This decrease in reaction time is no comfort to them as every split second lost in the time they take to react could mean a difference between life and death. Thus, a decrease in reaction time caused by electronic devices would lead to a greater chance of an accident happening, and the use of electronic devices by pedestrians is wrong.

Next, some people might be thinking that the usage of these electronic devices while engaging in another activity is not wrong as they can, in fact, increase alertness and concentration. An example would be the security guards, as, having a rather monotonous job, electronic devices such as music players can help them stay awake and focused. These people claim that electronic devices actually lessen the chances of an accident occurring as they increase a person’s awareness.

However, these people did not realize that these electronic devices actually distract the person instead of helping them to stay alert. It is a widely known fact that noise-cancelling earphones can silence almost hundred percent of ambient noise. This means that the pedestrians will be so engrossed in listening to their music, that they will not take note of their surroundings. The music will also shut out any warnings that people around us might be trying to give, and the person is essentially “deaf”. The Sunday times also conducted another test, in which a bicycle bell was rung behind thirty people listening to music. The results showed that twelve people could not hear the bicycle bell, and failed to get out of the way. This proves beyond any doubt that electronic devices can distract a person to such a point in which they are totally oblivious to their surroundings. Electronic devices serve as a distraction to people, and seem to cut off their senses from the real world, creating a situation in which nothing can get through to them. This creates a dangerous situation in which accidents can occur easily. Thus, the use of electronic devices by pedestrians is wrong as it can cause accidents by distracting people.

In conclusion, the use of electronic devices by pedestrians is wrong as it can cause accidents due to a reduced reaction time of the pedestrians, and because pedestrians are deeply distracted by such devices.

Now, whenever I cycle and encounter someone engrossed in their electronic devices, I do not just cycle past them. Instead, I stop and give them a lesson on safety. Without such inconsiderate behavior from some pedestrians, this world would be an accident-free place.

Personal response to the article The Evolution of Goodness (Handout 4)

Drawing from this article and your personal experience, say why you believe human beings are willing to do good to others.



For the past four thousand millennia, man has evolved from primitive tree swinging beasts to the upright walking intellect of today’s modern standards. How is it that an originally average species of mammals has sustained itself throughout these years to become the masters of today’s planet Earth? The answer, I believe, is that this particular community has been sustaining each other in times of dire circumstances. In other words, they have been “doing good” to each other. The origin of this act can be classified into two categories, one of them is blood kinship, and the other is reciprocity.

Firstly, the roots of doing good can be traced back to blood kinship. By blood kinship, I mean that a person is related to another through blood, or even genetically. When a person’s family members or relatives are in danger, they feel obliged to support and provide aid to them. This sense of responsibility is brought about as one has feelings of love and care for his own family members, and does not want them to suffer. They will thus do their best to intervene in the hope of saving their loved ones. An example in the real world would be worker bees. Worker bees are altruistic, meaning that they would sacrifice themselves to protect their hives. This originally went against Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it was later found that the bees were actually protecting blood relatives in the hives. These blood relatives are genetically similar to the worker bees, and by practicing altruism, they could potentially save the lives of hundreds of blood relatives. These bees indirectly ensured the continuity of the passing down of its own genes. This example shows that good deeds can be done in the hope of protecting one’s family. Personally, my mother has also displayed such behavior, and she has stood up to numerous bullies that harassed me, just to make sure that I am safe.

The second motive of doing good is reciprocity. Reciprocity, put simply, means “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. Humans might sometimes help others, hoping that someday, the recipient might return the favour. This kind of doing good, although being calculative and somewhat untrue in nature, is still a form of doing good. In such a relationship, both parties will receive mutual benefits, and this in turn helps in their survival. An example would be the clown fish and the sea anemone. The clownfish, being territorial, protects the anemone from anemone eating fish, and the anemone provides shelter for the clown fish. I, too, have had such experiences. Being a water polo player, I know that the key to playing well is teamwork. By coordinating our passing, shooting, and defending, we will be able to defeat the opponent as a united body. Whereas if we were to solo, we would definitely be crushed. As can be seen, reciprocity is an extremely strong reason for a person to do good. Both parties profit, and at the end of the day, everyone is happy.

In conclusion, I believe that human beings are willing to do good to others because of the factor of blood kinship, and reciprocity. In helping others, some people bear their family in mind, and others might be thinking about their own well being. However, if everyone does good to each other, this world would be a better place.

Orchard Road Makeover Completed

Using money as though it is toilet paper is often frowned upon. However, that is exactly what the government did. They spent 40 million dollars on a few pots of flowers, some lamp posts, glass panels and disco lights, claiming that this beautifies the landscape. To put it quite frankly, almost nobody could appreciate, let alone tell the difference. Would you, the taxpayer, want your money to be wasted? I think not. It is apparent that the Orchard Road makeover was not worth it as it brought no obvious benefits and the money could be spent somewhere else instead.

Firstly, the whole process of the Orchard Road makeover, and the outcome itself, brought about some undesirable results. Some people might argue that the 40 million dollars spent on infrastructure works alone cannot energize and enhance Orchard Road, and that this is a long-term investment, requiring other combined factors to make the Orchard Road experience an enjoyable one. However, 40 million dollars is certainly a large amount of money, and if it brings about negative impacts, I would say that it was not worth it. For example, the unbearable noise pollution coming from the numerous construction sites of the shopping district was enough to put some shoppers off. Many areas of construction were blocked off too, and limited the shopper’s access to certain areas. The temporary structures that have been put up have also obscured small businesses from the shopping crowd, thus affecting their business. On a whole, tourists, and even the locals were extremely annoyed by the renovation process, and this inevitably affected their impression and the image of Orchard Road. The supposedly large scale revamp of Orchard Road, though costly, failed to achieve its desired outcome. Few of those surveyed along Orchard’s streets could notice the new features, and some even thought that the renovation was still in progress. From the point of view of an average Singaporean, the only improvements to the district were several glass panels with flashing lights, widened walkways, new lamp posts, and a few flower totems. For such a pricey make over, one cannot help but feel that it was unsatisfactory.

Secondly, I feel that the huge sum of money spent on the makeover should be used for other more meaningful purposes. One such area where the money can be spent is the maintenance of the place. What for built a whole range of new facilities when one has problems maintaining the current ones? Several shoppers have noted that the walkways were littered by dead leaves, and this paints a picture contrary to a “clean and green Singapore”. More could be done to clean up the walkways and maintain the place as a whole. Also, in view of the bleak economical situation that Singapore faces, would it not be wiser to spend money on solving more immediate problems such as shortage of jobs and a shrinking economy? The money used for non-vital decorations could go into the economy. After all, 40 million dollars is indeed a large sum of money. Therefore, I feel that the money could be spent in other more pressing issues.

In conclusion, I feel that the 40 million dollars make-over was not worth it in that it did not bring about immediate positive effects, but instead brought about negative ones. The money spent could also be used for other more important matters.This controversial issue leaves us thinking-Is the Orchard Road makeover really all that it is cracked up to be? Are the flower pots, flashing lights and glass panels really all that necessary? At the end of the day, the huge sum of money used was actually wasted.

New Introduction (Modified)

Using money as though it is toilet paper is often frowned upon. However, that is exactly what the government did. They spent 40 million dollars on a few pots of flowers, some lamp posts, glass panels and disco lights, claiming that this beautifies the landscape. To put it quite frankly, almost nobody could appreciate, let alone tell the difference. Would you, the taxpayer, want your money to be wasted? I think not. Therefore, the Orchard Road makeover is not worth it.

New introduction

Using money as though its toilet paper is often frowned upon. As such, spending 40 million dollars on a few pots of flowers, some lamp posts, glass panels and disco lights is definitely wrong. These pointless upgrades should not have been made in the first place, given that they bring no obvious benifits. Such thoughtless waste of money is unacceptable given today's financial crisis. Therefore, the Orchard Road makeover is not worth it.

“Ouch-ard” Road Makeover?

I feel that the 40 million dollars makeover of Orchard Road was not worth it. This is so as the changes and the process of change brought about negative impacts, and the money could have been used to tackle some other more pressing problems.

Firstly, the whole process of the Orchard Road makeover, and the outcome itself, brought about some undesirable results. Some people might argue that the 40 million dollars spent on infrastructure works alone cannot energize and enhance Orchard Road, and that this is a long-term investment. However, 40 million dollars is certainly a large amount of money, and if it brings about negative impacts, I would say that it was not worth it. For example, the unbearable noise pollution coming from the numerous construction sites of the shopping district was enough to put some shoppers off. Many areas of construction were blocked off too, and limited the shopper’s access to certain areas. The temporary structures that have been put up have also obscured small businesses from the shopping crowd, thus affecting their business. On a whole, tourists, and even the locals were extremely annoyed by the renovation process, and this inevitably affected their impression and the image of Orchard Road. The supposedly large scale revamp of Orchard Road, though costly, failed to achieve its desired outcome. Few of those surveyed along Orchard’s streets could notice the new features, and some even thought that the renovation was still in progress. From the point of view of an average Singaporean, the only improvements to the district were several glass panels with flashing lights, widened walkways, new lamp posts, and a few flower totems. For such a pricey make over, one cannot help but feel that it was unsatisfactory.

Secondly, I feel that the huge sum of money spent on the makeover should be used for other more meaningful purposes. One such area where the money can be spent is the maintenance of the place. What for built a whole range of new facilities when one has problems maintaining the current ones? Several shoppers have noted that the walkways were littered by dead leaves, and this paints a picture contrary to a “clean and green Singapore”. More could be done to clean up the walkways and maintain the place as a whole. Also, in view of the bleak economical situation that Singapore faces, would it not be wiser to spend money on solving more immediate problems such as shortage of jobs and a shrinking economy? The money used for non-vital decorations could go into the economy. After all, 40 million dollars is indeed a large sum of money. Therefore, I feel that the money could be spent in other more pressing issues.

In conclusion, I feel that the 40 million dollars make-over was not worth it in that it did not bring about immediate positive effects, but instead brought about negative ones. The money spent could also be used for other more important matters. This controversial issue leaves us thinking-Is Orchard Road really all that it is cracked up to be?

Should the CCTs be scrapped?

I do not agree that we should scrap the CCTs as CCTs do more good than harm to the average Rafflesian. Firstly, the amount of learning that an average Rafflesian goes through is tremendous, with concepts such as remainder theorem, Kantian Ethics, Socrates Reasoning, and Pythagoras theorem. With this in mind, the students definitely need to constantly keep track of and revise their work, so that they can process and commit them to memory. The CCTs, in a way, make them obliged to study in order to achieve good grades. Thus, the CCTs are critical to a student’s learning. Secondly, students will, every now and then, want to know their standard of academic performance relative to their peers. The CCTs act as a common platform for all students and give them the chance to gauge their academic progress. Thirdly, the learning process is about making mistakes and learning from them. The CCTs are thus a great opportunity for the students to spot any loopholes in their understanding of certain concepts, and at the same time strengthen these concepts. Without the CCTs, the students will repeatedly make the same mistakes, without even being aware of it. Some of us might argue that CCTs bring about stress to the student. However, the advantages of CCTs far outweigh the disadvantages. Thus, the CCTs should not be scrapped.