Reflections on Term 2 Expository Test

I am very disappointed after receiving my results for my expository essay test in Term 2. The reason for this was because there was a drop in grade for my results as compared to that in Term 1. I believe the reason for this was that I am really not reading enough and thus, my range of vocabulary is just insufficient.

In this paper, I was forced to do the question on "The Arts should be made a compulsory component in the school curriculum. Discuss." The reason would be that I am totally unsure of the 2 other topics. For the first topic, I could not decide on what social media was, while for the second topic, I was unable to figure out the meaning of "Adolescence" as well as "turbulence" and thus, was unable to do both the questions.

The thing I've done badly for my essay is that I was unable to include as much examples as I did for my explanation to support them. Furthermore, because of my lack of vocabulary, I am unable to explain my pointers properly.

To ensure that I will do better for my other essays in the future, I would try to read more Time magazines as well as books for me to widen my vocabulary. I would definitely strive to do better in the upcoming tests, achieving at least a grade increase from this term.

Comments_Term 2

Comment 1: Lee Liak Ghee (Poem Analysis – The Soldier)

http://leeliakghee2i310.blogspot.com/2011/05/poem-analysis-soldier.html

Comment 2: Lee Liak Ghee (STOMP – Jiang Lai)

http://leeliakghee2i310.blogspot.com/2011/05/stomp-jiang-lai.html

Comment 3: Gaw Ban Siang (AAT Lessons and Syllabus)

http://bansiang2i3.blogspot.com/2011/05/our-uniform.html

Comment 4: Koh Yi Da (Response to a Chinese Debate Topic)

http://2i3numbereight.blogspot.com/2011/04/response-to-chinese-debate-topic.html

Comment 5: Lee Wei Ren (Facebook sued for $1 billion over Intifada page - Should social networking sites be banned?)

http://lolz-teddy.blogspot.com/2011/04/facebook-sued-for-1-billion-over.html

Comment 6: Lu Zhi Hao (LKY’s comments T2P9)

http://2i315.blogspot.com/2011/05/lkys-comments.html

Comment 7: Jonathan Ng (War Poetry – In Flanders Field)

http://ispark18.blogspot.com/2011/05/war-poetry-in-flanders-fields.html

Comment 8: Chin Ming Fwu (Spitting)

http://2i303la2011.blogspot.com/2011/05/spitting.html

Comment 9: Lee Liak Ghee (Are girls the stronger sex?)

http://leeliakghee2i310.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-girls-stronger-sex.html

Comment 10: Kervin Tay (Term 1 Sabbetical – Solar Panels / Renewable Energy)

http://kervin1i3.blogspot.com/2011/04/term-1-sabbatical-solar-panels.html

Poem_In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I believe this poem was very well-written as it was able to make, at least for me, feel involved in the scenario.

For the first paragraph, I think that the poet was able to start off the poem very well by making use of "poppies" as a symbol to represent most likely the soldiers of the wall. Secondly, it also made use of the line "The larks, still bravely singing, fly" as a great reference to the whole war itself as larks are usually used to symbolize hope. Following this sentence, they spoke about how they heard guns below, most likely trying to relate with the previous sentence and bring out the theme of "Behind every war, there is hope."

For the second paragraph, I believe the poet was able to contrast the soldiers themselves from before they came to war and after that. It is also evident that the soldiers were all dead and "lie in Flanders field" at the time when this paragraph ended. On the first line, the word "short" is used instead of "few", which should then be grammatically correct. However, the usage of short could be used to demonstrate that the days prior to these seemed very short, besides being few. The difference in this would be that "short" would be more to the fact that the days themselves were very short in duration, while "few" would be used to show that the days were very little.

The last paragraph, which is my favourite among the three, is used to show the perseverance of the whole team in fighting the enemy. Initially, I was unable to fully understand it, and I thought the "you" in the paragraph refers to the enemy and the things that "we" throw are grenades and bombs. However, soon after, I realised that it was actually meant to show the teamwork among the team and their perseverance to defeat the enemy and the "torch" was actually a form of symbol showing an obligations of the soldier to carry on the battle. Among them all, I felt that the last line of "In Flanders fields" was able to put a really good ending and period to the whole poem.

Should Singlish be recognized as an official language in Singapore?

Singlish is a very widely used language in Singapore today. But should it be recognized as an official language? Below, I'll be presenting my views on why Singlish should not be recognized as an official language in Singapore.

Firstly, what exactly is Singlish? Well, it is a mix of Chinese, Malay, Hokkien, Cantonese and many more languages which Singaporeans often use, thus getting its name of Singlish. So what so bad about having this language? Well, for one, it would definitely worsen relationships among different races. Because Singlish is a mix of language, different races might mistake one another for what they’re saying easily. Wouldn’t this therefore, worsen the relationship the social cohesion among the citizens of Singapore, which is totally against what the government is promoting?

Secondly, besides having internal communication problems, communication with citizens from other countries would be even worse. Giving an example here, imagine going to England and saying, “Eh, I want one chicken rice, more sauce ah” at a chicken rice store, the owner would either not understand him at all or give him chicken rice with lots of chili sauce instead of black sauce which he intended. Furthermore, if you were to go to a university in Singapore and because you were so used to using Singlish, you might start to blur it out unknowingly. How would your English friends there interpret and understand you then? Wouldn’t this in turn leave a bad impression on the English man, having them think that our standard of English is poor instead of them understanding that it is our language?

Some of you might argue that Singlish as an official language would help in improving the citizen’s national identity of being a Singaporean. No doubt, that would be the case. But what would the use be if the communication amongst one another be degraded to such a state whereby citizens can’t understand each other? Furthermore, it is a universal fact that if you were to adapt very comfortably to Singlish, it would be very hard for you to use proper English as words and pronunciations would just be blurted out without you knowing. If communication cannot be mastered properly, what use is there to speak for our national identity?

Thus, I would re-emphasize my point and state that Singlish should NOT be recognized as an official language in Singapore.

Sabbatical Term 1 (Hwa Chong Proficiency of Communication)

I had attended the Hwa Chong Proficiency of Communication sabbatical in Term 1 and I must say that it was a very fruitful experience for me.

Some who might have gone to this sabbatical might claim that it was very boring as all we did there was to give speeches, listen to speeches, and give more speeches. Well, I do agree that that was all we did, but at the same time, useful tips as well as techniques were taught to us to be more confident, and most importantly, engaging when giving our speeches to a large group of audience on a certain topic. Furthermore, it is undeniable that from the practice we had from presenting speech was able to help many of the students overcome their stage fright as well as give a more persuasive as well as interesting speech.

On the first day of sabbatical, my thoughts were the same as many others; why did I get into this sabbatical of all? The title itself seemed so boring and I thought I was going to waste 5 days of my life listening to crap. However, I was proved wrong on the first day of sabbatical. There were in fact so much more to presenting speeches then what we knew; impacts, rhetorical question, repetition, there were just far too much method that we can use to give an interesting speech, so why are we giving speeches that would make the audience themselves fall asleep?

On the last day of the sabbatical, which is the assessment, I must say that it was a hilarious thing of me to prepare a PowerPoint presentation instead of a speech. Nevertheless, I could see the improvement in me presenting in front of a large group of audience as compared to the first lesson. I was able to be more aware of my audience as well as use some of the techniques which was taught, mainly rhetorical questioning.

I must say that among all the sabbaticals I've been through, this one would definitely be the most helpful to me in the near future. However, I also learnt a very important thing from this sabbatical; never to be complacent in giving speeches as well as to know your own script like the back of your hand.

Does Hard Work Always Pay Off?

"You must study hard to get good results." This is an all-too common phrase we've seen and heard in our lives. But is it really a fact? Will the hard work you put into studies always pay off? Well, I suppose that many might argue that it is, but I must say that it does not pay off all the time.

Given a very generic example here: a students tries to study very hard for this upcoming Science test he has, burning midnight oil and trying to get all t

he facts into his brain. However, during the test itself, he just suddenly blacks out. What's worse, the teacher might even think that this student did not study at all, and may even reprimand him for not working hard enough, where in actual fact he has.

Whereas in this case, the student would be like :

All over again

How depressing and demoralizing would it be then, for a student, who just simply wishes to get a good and rewarding result from all that hard work he had put into studies?

Another example where many people should have heard of: Similar to the above example, one has this really large exam coming up. But on that day of exam itself, he suddenly fell ill and in the end, had to retake the year all over again. Is this all that could be done for this student; to just have him retake his test again the following year? Years and years of hard work before the exam, and he had to retake; just because he was sick?

Thus, I would like to ask again; does hard work really pay off all the time? None of the above circumstances can be controlled. You may argue that if one student is really familiar with his notes, he would never just black out during the test. However, think from the students' point of view for a change; imagine studying day and night for this test, how stress would it be? So I must say, to guarantee a pay off, one should learn to do more smart work instead of just putting in hard work.