"THE FUTURE IS FOR THOSE WHO DARE" (LEE, 2005)

The summary of the article” THE FUTURE IS FOR THOSE WHO DARE”-Minister Mentor shares his thoughts on how Singapore can succeed.

“Yes, we face tremendous competition…But as they (China and India) rise, so will we….It will be a booster for us. We have to position ourselves and seize the opportunities before other seize them…The future is what you make out of it,” Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told NUS students on 31st January 2005 at Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum.
Being invited to give his speech on the topic “In a fast changing world, what of our past experience is relevant?”, MM Lee stimulated the young generations by the thoughtful investigation about the challenges and opportunities of Singapore nowadays. Firstly, according to MM Lee, the Singaporean’s unity, the resourcefulness and the clean and effective administration are the most important factor contributing to the considerable development of the country. He, afterward, mentioned the breakthroughs of technology in all aspect of life as well as the threat from terrorism and other “big forces” that were reshaping the world. However, finally, MM Lee confirmed the great potentials of Singapore today and strongly believed in a much better future for the country in both economic and political perspectives.
After that, it was time for students to raise their opinion as well as to listen to the analyses from MM Lee about their concerns. The question-and-answer session dealt with various problems approached by students with many points of view. All of them were answered carefully and thoughtfully by MM Lee. Some of the most outstanding questions are the cost of plurality, the Singapore’s ownership, and the political competitiveness. Also, MM Lee held the current leaders in high regards because of their quick and effective responses to many serious issues at that time (Halliday, 2005).


References
Halliday, J. L. (2005, February). The future is for those who dare. Knowledge Enterprise, p. 4.

ZERO WASTE vs. LAND FILLING
Forty million tones is the amount of household rubbish in 2020 (Collins, 2003). Two hundred billion VND is the amount of money that Ho Chi Minh City’s residence for rubbish land-filling and incineration. It is really about time for a new method to reduce the huge amount of rubbish each year, to save our money, and to save our environment. That novel method is zero waste. Although both zero waste and land filling have their own advantages and disadvantages, the former method is our best choice for the clean and stable future.
In perspective of short term vision, land filling seems to exceed zero waste in term of economy and policy. On the one hand, land filling’s techniques have been developed for quite a long time, so it does not cost a huge amount of money to establish the project. Actually, most countries in the world use this method in dealing with their rubbish problem including our country, Viet Nam. On the other hand, zero waste requires not only huge investments in term of finance and techniques researches, but also a close cooperation among public, companies and governments. First, the public’s awareness is the most important factor. Second, most importantly, companies actually have to change totally their production method. For example, a company producing fruit juice stored in portable boxes has to think about new designs of their products. The fruit juice box is made from metals, papers and polymers. How can firms design the products which are easy to be taken apart or do not need taking apart to be renewed? And finally, the government has to pass the law to encourage the residences to use these products as well as to make sure all the system runs fluently. For all of these reasons, it is easy to think that land filling has many more advantages than zero waste. However, this statement is only right in short-term point of view. Furthermore, despite of the mentioned above difficulties, many countries have succeeded in the zero waste projects, for example: Canberra with 59% its rubbish recycled, Edmonton and Canada with 70% (Collins, 2003). That is why we should take into account the effectiveness of these two methods in long-term when deciding what the most suitable method is for our future.
In the perspective of long-term vision, it is zero waste which is the best choice for economic, political, and environmental concern. First, we are running out of our natural resources. Therefore, zero waste gives us a valuable opportunity to prevent the shortage of these land capital in the future because most of the resources used can be reused or recycled. This method also creates new jobs, which brings economic profit to residences. Furthermore, the success in some countries in signing up to the zero waste policies, for example, Canberra, Toronto, California, and New Zealand, is the proof for its political feasibility (Collins, 2003). The zero waste projects are chances for governments, industry and public to come together and head towards a sustained development of the economy. Finally, applying zero waste, we can avoid all additional environmental problems from other rubbish dealing methods, for example, leakages and bad smells from land filling, or the pollutants and smoke from the incineration. Thus, the zero waste project is really suitable method, especially for Vietnam because of our high residence density, and our willingness to protect our beautiful nature.
In conclusion, although the landfilling has some advantages, zero waste is absolutely the best choice we can make. This is the way to save our valuable natural resources, to create new jobs, to protect the environment. It is true to say that heading to a sustained development in the economy means applying zero waste method.
References:
Collins, J. (2003, Oct 3rd). Radical plans for waste could herald a big clean-up. The Guardian Weekly. p.25.

Brain mapping is there for the benefit of human,

Despite of the novel idea about brain mapping, there is a controversial debate about whether its purpose is for human welfare. And if I were a researcher, I would prepare myself to the challenges in applying and developing this project.
First of all, some people think that it is unfair to judge people basing on what has not happened. I totally agree with it. Actually, our behavior is the result of both the gene structure and its interaction with the environment. So is our thinking. It is the result of our personality and the impact other people make on us. Therefore, everything can be changed basing on the surrounding environment we are living. However, it is not true to say that brain mapping is meaningless. In fact, brain mapping gives us a chance to get a draft idea about people, so that we will be well-prepared. Imagine how good it is if we were employers and we knew the strengths and weaknesses of our employees even when we have not hired them. We could give them opportunity to improve their talents as well as prevent things that disturb them. Therefore, getting a draft idea about the character and the thought of people is really helpful.
Second, people may think that it is unsafe to let others know their thought. I also agree with it. That is why we should never talk to others whatever we are thinking about before considering it properly. However, it is the use of this technology that is the problem. And it all comes from human. Every technology is for the human welfare, but the way people use it makes it evil or not. The invention of nuclear power is a good example. Back to our problem, brain mapping is an amazing project opening a new era of understanding people, especially in investigating crimes and terrorism. If we use this novel technique correctly, it will have a great contribution to human benefit.
In conclusion, brain mapping gives us a chance to know people better and therefore to help each other. Of course, we have to be careful in applying this project to make sure that its purpose is human welfare.