Commentary 2

I’m very sure all Singaporeans will agree that terrorists are a huge threat to the general safety of the public. If an infamous terrorist were to be on the loose, most people will be more alert, and countries will step up their security. However, what if one such terrorist was to be set loose by the government of another country? Such is the case in the recent hoo-hah over the decision made by the Scottish Government to release the Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi, an ex-Libyan intelligence officer. Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, in a move which has both won approval and criticism, decided to release Al Megrahi on Thursday, 20 August, citing compassionate grounds because of Al Megrahi contracting prostrate cancer. While both the supporters and criticisers of this move believe that such a move will generate too much a controversy, the supporters believe this controversy will help them and also demonstrates that certain governments have the “courage and honor” to treat terrorists as fellow human beings while criticisers attack the political manoeuvrings around this move, and generally show outrage at the decision. However, it is clear that there is a political undercurrent when noting the given reasons for the release, the reactions of the Libyans, and the reasons given in criticisms made by influential people.
It is obvious that prominent governments have expressed their dissatisfaction in the decision because it is a “false sign to the terrorists that governments are becoming lax on the issue of national security”. Al Megrahi’s release was met with outrage by families of the U.S. victims of the Lockerbie bombing and criticized by President Barack Obama as "highly objectionable." This can be attributed to the fact that the grief of the families of the U.S. victims are so great, Al Megrahi was like “a caged beast being let out” to them. Other reactions include, most notably, the reacion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert Mueller, who has sharply criticised Scotland’s justice minsiter for releasing the bomber stating that it was an “inexplicable” act that “gives comfort to terrorists” around the world and makes a “mockery of rule of law”, demonstrated by the Libyan citizens welcoming . It should be noted that the tone of the letter he sent to Kenny MacAskill was out of character for the normally reserved FBI director, and this possibly implies that his anger and outrage was both professional and personal. This can be inferred from the fact that Mr Mueller led the investigation to the 1988 airplane bombing that killed 270 people, most of them Americans, over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
However, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio that it was wrong to assume that all those affected by the bombing were opposed to al-Megrahi's release. "I understand the huge and strongly held views of the American families, but that's not all the families who were affected by Lockerbie," Salmond said. "As you're well aware, a number of the families, particularly in the U.K., take a different view and think that we made the right decision." This was based on humanitarian grounds that Al Megrahi should “die in his own country” as he had only three months to live. This, according to the Scottish government, is enough to release a dying terrorist from prison. This was not a “mockery of rule and law”. However, it shows that the Scottish government is capable of thinking rationally and consider health reasons to make such a decision.
In conclusion, the two sides of the argument have their own reasons, their own beliefs, and their own stand in this controversy. Differing views, though clashing in viewpoints, just shrouds the entire topic in a thicker veil of mystery and controversy. Perhaps such issues are best left to the politicians themselves.

ERP 1, Qn4a

One of the oddest progressions of life is probably when someone is growing up. All those bitter memories of the failures you experienced which you hoped could be thrown away, hidden in the deepest recesses of your mind, and all those sweet tastes of success which you wanted to store in your mind forever. Yet, perhaps one of the type of memories that you cannot erase no matter what you do are the scars of punishments, for the scars will continue to burn and linger in your mind for a very long time.

One particular incident remained etched into my mind forever. It occurred on a particular Monday some months back, when everyone was feeling the anguish of a hot April and didn’t expect an incident like that to happen. These days, corporal punishment was rare, and reserved for the “special cases” in schools. However, this was not the case for every school. In some schools the cane was akin to a nuclear bomb – deployed in extreme circumstances but, with any luck, seldom used – while other schools witnessed canings so frequently it became sort of a norm for it to occur. Fortunately, my school belonged to the former, but this only served to further imprint the incident inside my mind.

He was just an ordinary-looking schoolboy minus the fearful look in his eyes. It resembled a funeral procession, with him being escorted by two prefects and being led by the feared discipline master himself. Behind his back, his fingers sought out every nook and cranny of his palms, digging furiously into the soft flesh to stifle his bout of panic. We sat, waiting, and watched on as the poor boy was instructed to bend and rest his upper torso on a table placed on the stage of the school hall, while the discipline master read out his offences like a judge would, with the atmosphere as tense and as solemn as that of a courtroom. Minutes lengthened into hours. As our eyes registered the discipline master flexing the cane for reasons unknown to us, perhaps as a grim performance heralding the wooden punisher, the boy braced himself visibly by clutching the table tightly.

The cane descended, hard.

The cries of pain and anguish reverberated around the hall, echoed screams tearing away at us. Most of us had the same thought in our minds: oh, let it be finished quick, and spare us from the melancholy orchestra of echoes! Our prayers were answered faster than we thought it would be, however. Three strokes, and it was over. As sudden as it began. Several people sighed – at what exactly, nobody seemed certain, but relief was evidently etched in our faces. Grimly, we filtered out of the hall in silence, but in quick, brisk steps, as if we were more than eager to exit the hellish place of a makeshift caning area. It resembled a horror movie; it left a lasting impression on you.

“Argh, that wasn’t what I had in mind for starting the week.” Jon, my classmate, attempted to shatter the silence clinging to us, much to our relief. I found that he was actually smiling, albeit a little grimly. Thoughts started rolling all over my mind about the incident I just witnessed. The punishment was certainly a judicious one, for he was caught stealing money from others, but could we say for sure whether he deserved it? No, we can’t, for we do not even know why he did it for. For a minute I was a hollow shell of emotion, contemplating the relevance of the incident to me. Why did I care about it so much? It affected me not physically, but rather emotionally. I saw for myself the tears slowly dropping from the eyes that screamed the word pain. I saw the actual anguish and pain punishment could deliver, but was it really justified? Should the school leave it to the parents to discipline him?

A sentence once said by my friend came to me then. The punishers punish people, but who punishes the punisher? Why do we allow the schools to do such a abominable thing? Why, when the news headlines scream about a teacher caught in a scandal of sorts, do they not receive harsh punishment like what the boy just experienced? These thoughts filtered through my mind, all in a space of five minutes before I had to abandon them to make way for lessons. I knew those questions might be irrelevant, but as a student, I couldn't help but wonder...

Commentaries Assessment: Attack of the clone debate

Some people think that cloning is cool, to have an exact replication of you next to you. Think of the endless possibilities of, literally, controlling the world! You can use your clone to get away with crimes, set up a decoy to fool the authorities and let them be confronted with a more subtle version of the 1956 movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". All these herald great wealth and power that greatly appeal to these people. These people, however, are really wrong. As far as I'm concerned, cloning is a technology not worth investing. It is a potential disaster for our world, if it leads to cloning of humans. It's morally and ethically wrong, and disrupts the natural order of events in our future, mainly due to these factors: it affects health by disrupting the root of life, the DNA; it's conflicting against many, if not most, religions; and it's tempting possibilities that might lead to humanity issues.

A major downside to cloning is that it is harmful to health. In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes. (Human Genome Project) Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos. In short, the action of cloning leads to two major biological problems: diversity loss, and health risk. The former is a result of cloning being a process of replicating a genetic constitution, thus hampering the diversity in genes. While lessening the diversity in genes, we weaken our ability of adaptation, lowering the survivability of humanity in the future years. Think about it: let's say cloning of humans is researched, discovered and perfected, and people start to make clones of themselves to let their legacy live on. As cloning replicates the gene data in exact proportions, the clones would be susceptible to the same diseases, and if everyone starts to clone themselves, one disease could devastate an entire population of people. How can this help us? Furthermore, let's look at the harmful effects cloning has on animals, its current target. There is a risk of disease transfer between transgenic animals and the animal from which the transgenes were derived. If an animal producing drugs in its milk becomes infected by a virus, the animal may transmit the virus to a patient using the drug. (Kayotic Development) This will increase the possibility of a worldwide pandemic, and it won't benefit us at all. Another point is clearly shown in the following statistics; more than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age, leading to the concern that research done on human cloning might be based on weak foundations of data that might lead to a global catastrophe. This is, obviously, detrimental to us.

The second downside of cloning is that it is already conflicting with many religions. Any research into human cloning would eventually need to be tested on human specimens. The ability to clone humans may lead to the genetic tailoring of offspring. The heart of the cloning debate is concerned with the genetic manipulation of a human embryo before it begins development. It is conceivable that scientists could alter a baby's genetic code to give the individual a certain color of eyes or genetic resistance to certain diseases as requested by the human bearing the original DNA code. This is viewed as inappropriate tampering with "Mother Nature" by many ethicists. Because clones are derived from an existing adult cell, it has older genes. Will the clone's life expectancy be shorter because of this? Studies done on the famous cloned sheep Dolly might just prove this point. Dolly's life was ended at the age of 6 (about half the life expectancy of her breed) when a veterinarian confirmed she had a progressive lung disease. (The Lab Rat) In January of 2002 her condition caused concern when she was diagnosed with a form of arthritis. Dolly yielded new information about the cloning process and how it can affect the clone and could add data to the idea that telomere length is connected to growing older. The researchers reported that Dolly's telomeres were 20 percent shorter than those of sheep who are not clones. The cells were taken from a six year old sheep and Dolly lived six years. It is probably to early to tell at this point if it is merely a coincidence but the health problems Dolly had at its young age (arthritis and progressive lung disease) would be extremely rare in a middle-aged sheep. This suggest that cloning might potentially cause serious health problems, and this causes great displeasure among ethical activists. Allow me to show you a few statistics:

A 1997-FEB CNN poll conducted among 1,005 American adults has a margin of error of 3%. They found:
-93% felt that cloning humans is a bad idea
-66% felt that cloning animals, such as sheep, is a bad idea
-69% are scared of the possibility of cloning humans
-74% believe that human cloning is against God's will; 19% say that it is not. 8
A subsequent Time/CNN poll, conducted on 2001-FEB found:
-90% felt that cloning humans was a bad idea
-67% felt that cloning animals, such as sheep, was a bad idea.
-45% believe that it will be possible to clone a human within the next ten years.
-69% believe that human cloning is against God's will; 23% say that it is not. (time.com)

These evidently show that a large number of Americans adamantly believes that cloning is about to develop into a bad idea, mainly attributing it to the possibility of human cloning.

Another view to cloning are provided by members of some religious groups, particularly Evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, as they believe that a soul enters the body at the instant of conception, and that the fertilized ovum is in fact a human person with full human rights. Dividing that "baby" in in half during an embryo cloning procedure would interfere with God's intent. It is also human experimentation on live persons. The many cloned zygotes that died after a few cell divisions would be lost human beings; their loss is considered as serious as the death of a new born baby.
These same conservative Christians would probably also be distressed at the use of cloning to weed out genetically defective fertilized ova in therapeutic cloning procedures. The procedure would result in the killing of one of the clones during the genetic testing. Since they regard each of the clones as separate human beings, this would be murder.
Others have questioned whether a cloned embryo will have a soul. A soul is weightless, colorless, odorless, has never been detected by any measurement and may not exist. But it is a concern to some believers. Fortunately, embryo cloning is similar to the natural processes that generate identical twins. And, with the exception of the ancient Hawaiians, nobody questions whether both twins have souls.

More ethical beliefs on cloning are as follows: Richard Nicholson of the British Bulletin of Medical Ethics said that cloning research may well be "sowing the seeds of our destruction." Ann Northrop, a columnist for LGNY (a New York gay/lesbian newspaper), said that human cloning is of interest to gays and lesbians: "...in a time when we're afraid that discovery of a genetic basis [for homosexuality] would lead to people aborting us, cloning would be a way of surviving...this [cloning] has the potential of giving women complete control over reproduction...a stunning possibility that could, carried to its logical extreme, eliminate men altogether." These facts clearly show that cloning might lead to serious ethical issues that will be potentially difficult to solve.

My last factor to be depicted here would be potential humanity issues. In the article Law war: Attack of the clone debate, scientists have voiced concern that cloning might lead to body-part merchants, which seriously bring us humans to an all-new low level of ethicality. Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient, mainly due to the two points abovementioned in earlier paragraphs, as while cloning allows man to tamper with genetics in human beings, it also makes deliberate reproduction of undesirable traits, a probability. Cloning of body organs might invite malpractices in society. In cloning human organs and using them for transplant, or in cloning human beings themselves, technical and economic barriers will have to be considered. Will cloned organs be cost-effective? Will cloning techniques really reach the common man? Moreover, cloning will put human and animal rights at stake. Will cloning fit into our ethical and moral principles? Cloning will leave man just another man-made being. Won't it devalue mankind? Won't it undermine the value of human life? Cloning is equal to emulating God. Is that easy? Is that risk-free? You might try to counter me that one can use a unconscious clone to provide spare organs if there are so many ethical issues revolving around cloning humans, but look, this depends on our technique. If our technique is good enough and can clone a single organ, it's OK, but if we're going to clone a unconscious clone, how can we tell if it's really unconscious? It's true that the organs of a clone can co-ordinate completely with our body immune system, but maybe it knows full well what's happening, but could not tell us? It would be inhumane to do so, and if we get the organs from the clone, it will die? Are we killing a human being, then? Another possible argument you might pose is if you cloned yourself, your clone will be at the same age as you. I'm afraid it's not the case; if you cloned yourself at a certain age, then your clone would be that many years younger than you, probably a generation younger. This might lead to a generation gap between them. You might be unnerved to know that you're an exact copy of someone older, won't you?

In conclusion, I'm personally glad that human cloning technology has not been perfected yet, as cloning is a technology we shouldn't spend so much resources on. It's morally and ethically wrong, it is detrimental to health, and it might lead to humanity issues. If you'd take a closer look at my abovementioned points, I'm pretty certain you'd agree, even if you do so with a little hesitation (which cannot be avoided, owing to the vague facts the research bodies and government officials provide to the public). Here's hoping that human cloning will stop manifesting itself as a potential herald of doom to the world.

New introduction on Orchard Road Facelift commentary

What would your thoughts be if you knew that the money the government takes from your work salary is used in a major facelift for a famous street in your country when you can't even notice what the facelift effects were?
Just last Sunday, when I went to Orchard Road with my friends to chill out and relax, I made use of the opportunity to observe the "upgraded" shopping haven in Singapore, trying in vain to notice the "facelift" effects and how it would change our experience in Orchard Road for the better. However, after a day of tiring my legs walking up and down Orchard Road, I recounted the basic essence of the commentary I read to them, and asked them for their opinions. By the look of their surprised faces, I could already predict their answers. True enough, they exclaimed that they never noticed anything that has changed, and that they weren't even aware that a facelift has taken place.

Commentary on Orchard Road Facelift

Final touches to the $40 million Orchard Road makeover were expected to be completed around the end of February, after a 10-month-long project to rejuvenate Singapore's main shopping strip. Workers were seen around February 25 scurrying around, erecting flower totems on the pavement from Forum The Shopping Mall to Liat Towers. By this weekend, old lamp posts and electrical boxes will be stripped out. New benches, lamp posts, recycling bins, planter boxes and other improvements are already in place along nearly 2km of Orchard Road, between Tanglin Mall and Concorde Hotel Singapore. The walkways have been repaved, and one road lane has been sacrificed to create a wider pavement in front of Ion Orchard, Wisma Atria and Ngee Ann City. The extra space has been given to 25 'urban green rooms', containing benches, planter boxes and large glass decorative screens that light up at night. This is the first time Orchard Road has been extensively improved, with the aim of "elevating it to the level of famous shopping streets like Paris' Champs-Elysees". (Straits Times) All this effort to give Orchard Road a complete makeover, but was it effective? In here, I strive to show you that the facelift was not effective and practical.
The project didn't start off quite well. An initial ambitious idea by the Singapore Tourism Board, which paid for the works, to construct a glass canopy running down the stretch was promptly shot down by mall owners, who said it would require too much maintenance. (Straits Times) Other apparent signs of its "failure" include the poll done on a random batch of 100 shoppers on Orchard Road by Lifestyle that revealed that 40% of them did not notice anything different, shoppers that also expressed their surprise over the huge sum of money invested on the facelift and their concern that the facelift was not worth it. Take note that this is despite the fact that the Singapore Tourism Board spent about 10 months on the facelift adding new features to the shopping hub. All these possibly show that the facelift is not worth the money.
Another concern expressed during the course of the facelift came from the shopowners. Key events such as the annual Great Singapore Sale and Christmas In The Tropics will continue to be held in Orchard Road, and The Singapore Tourism Board has given the assurance that customers can shop as usual, but building owners and tenants will be affected for an average of ten weeks throughout the ten-month development period. This was not accepted well by most of the shop tenants, as they argue that the ten weeks' worth of money they could earn might be too much to be missed, and thus the facelift might be hindering their business to much. Paragon's $45 million facelift was also completed recently, comprising a contemporary and elegant-looking facade, an expansion of three more floors of office and medical space as well as new stores.
Started in January 2008, the facelift forms part of Paragon's continuous efforts to enhance its retail environment and shopping experience for customers. This upgrading project is also "in step with URA's call to building owners to create more interesting and unique building facades to enhance the vibrancy of Orchard Road, as more well-heeled international visitors come to Singapore" (business.asiaone.com). However, the obvious "spam" of glass used in the design was not welcomed by both the shop tenants and the shoppers. A teacher commented that the glass panels were impractical, especially at night, when people got drunk and might accidentally smash them, wasting a very huge sum of money, thus the money was not well spent.
Here's a more personal view for you: assume that you are one of the shop tenants or shoppers, knowing that, directly or indirectly, you contributed a little money to the humongous sum spent, yet you know that, some day, a drunkard might just smash your hard-earned money away. I don't think you'd like it. Also, what if the day itself was exceptionally hot? Would you want to feel the intense heat?
Take an official view: Ms Lau Chuen Wei, executive director of the Singapore Retailers Association, said those businesses are worried because not knowing how long the lane closures in view of the facelift upgrading going on will cause their businesses to be affected, a clear and direct result of the impedement of traffic. This, combined with the shop tenants and shoppers' views, show very clearly why the money spent on the facelift is not well spent. Thus, in conclusion, the facelift was not effective and practical. A lot of the money is spent on impractical uses voted by the shoppers and shop tenants; since the facelift is done in the hope of helping shop tenants enjoy more business and let shoppers have a better shopping experience, doesn't it fail if its main targets do not think that it is effective and practical?

Exposition Essay #1: Students should be allowed to set their own rules

It is a widely-argued topic regarding the students' rights to set their own rules in schools. Admittedly, some students (if not most) bear a mindset that the school rules should be set by the students themselves, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which include "students know best under what type of environment they function best", and so on. If you are a student, perhaps you share the same sentiments as these. Whatever the case, students have little chances of being allowed to set their preferred rules in the near future, but I do believe that students should be allowed to set their own rules themselves.

In this essay, I strive to show you that students should be allowed to set their own rules even though they might never have the chance to set their own rules. A certain university class in South Korea underwent a special lesson. Curious about the effects of letting students take over the helm, the teacher allowed them to draft out a few rules they feel should replace the university rules, while the teacher herself drew up a list of rules she felt the university should consider. In the end, the teacher compared both lists and noticed similarities in the rules, and drew a conclusion that because they fashioned the rules themselves, they are more likely to respect them. It "is surprising how fair students will be if they are given the helm". (http://bogglesworldesl.com/lessons/2002janfeb.htm). Does this mean that students should be allowed to set their own rules in school?
Before students can intelligently observe differences among rules in various classrooms, families, and countries, they must first be able to identify and reflect upon rules that are familiar to them. Although most students should be able to identify some of the school rules and rules in their families, they may not have been asked before to think about why groups create and follow rules. Most students understand that the rule to "not hit others" helps keep people safe. They may not have considered before that many different kinds of groups have this same rule, all over the world, because keeping people safe is a way of maintaining social order. Students are not ready to talk about the term "social order," but they are ready to think about why rules are important in groups. "Benchmarks for Science Literacy" Page 154 gives an opinion that "The emphasis in the first years of schooling should be on helping children to become aware of the range of society's implicit rules. Students can begin by finding out what the rules are in different classrooms and families, observing how children respond to the rules, and recording their findings in drawings and notes. Discussions can focus on how the rules and behaviors resemble or differ from those in their own classroom or family. Such observations should introduce students to the idea of cultural diversity (though of course no such term should be used at this stage), and this impression should be strongly reinforced by the stories they read." This possibly suggest that schools should expose the first-years to the school rules, allow them to fully understand them, and this can perhaps help them respect the rules better. However, building on this evidence from "Benchmarks for Science Literacy", one possible way is to create a classroom environment in which students really integrate the rules is to begin the school year with students fully participating in developing the classroom rules. When students help write the rules, and take part in the process of deciding upon the rules and consequences, they are more apt to feel a sense of belonging and ownership. Students who are empowered in this way begin to self-regulate and develop a sense of pride in the environment they are helping to shape. They are "citizens" in their "classroom society" and are building the foundation for learning how to live in a diverse and democratic society. This adds up to a few questions we should ask the students:

- Why do we need rules?

- How do rules help keep us safe?

- Do all people need rules?

- What would happen if everyone had the same rules?

- What would happen if everyone had different rules?

- Who should decide what the rules should be?

If everyone can unanimously agree on the same answer for all the above questions, it is time students should be allowed to set their own rules. Why? This is an important concept for students to think about because they are building a foundation now for learning about how rules help maintain social order. Students must first understand how they and their immediate neighbor play a part in rule making before they can understand this on a larger scale. They must realise the fact that it is virtually impossible for ALL students in a certain school to unanimously agree on a certain set of rules, resulting in differing sentiments and opinions. Thus, if students are allowed to take over the helm, should we allow all the students to get together and draw up the complete set of rules? Since this is virtually impossible as it defeats the whole purpose, does that mean students are never destined to set their own rules?
Allow me to elaborate on the above point. The 17th century British Philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, in his famous book "The Leviathan" depicts for us a very ugly aspect of men living without rules. Men, in that situation, are capable of being very violent in their dealings with each other. It is in order and rules to preserve his own life that man agrees to follow rules and regulations and get out of this state of nature. To Hobbes, the only state that can guarantee men's safety is one where men unconditionally obey authority (rules). We need nor totally agree with Hobbes, but we have to accept that in any large gathering of people, there are bound to be some at least who have the tendency to question the rules. Hobbes has correctly observed one aspect of human nature, that which is the tendency to differ. Men are bound, some time or another, to disagree with his fellowmen. Another 17th century philosopher named John Locke observed that though differences should be permitted within limits, rules and regulations should at some stage be used to enforce peace and cooperation among dissenting groups of people. Though Locke pictured men as naturally given to orderly living, still he insisted that there must be an impartial authority to guarantee the presence that order prevails, as individual differences might so assert themselves as to cause a chaotic situation. We must now question the identity of the "impartial authority". Yes, some might argue that this refers to the staff of a school in the context of this essay, but we must also see that if students set their own rules, there will be lesser discontent as it is common sense for the student population to outnumber the staff population in most schools. But is this really possible?
In the United States alone, statistics show that in 2005–06, 86 percent of public schools reported one or more serious violent incidents,7 violent incidents,8 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater, or other crimes had occurred at their school, amounting to an estimated 2.2 million crimes. This figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2005–06. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/) Forty-eight percent of public schools reported taking at least one serious disciplinary action against a student—including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools—for specific offenses during the 2005–06 school year. Of those serious disciplinary actions, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were expulsions, and 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools.
The largest percentage of schools that reported taking a disciplinary action in 2005–06 did so in response to a physical attack or fight: 32 percent of schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or fights. The vast majority of students ages 12–18 reported that their school had a student code of conduct (95 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (93 percent) in 2005 . Metal detectors were the least commonly observed security measure, with 11 percent of students reporting their use at their school. This clearly show the lack of respect for the rules set in colleges in the United States, and it is amounting to a serious breach in school safety for the students. Does this show that students should be allowed to set their own rules? Not likely. A possible measure the US schools will take is to step up security and create more rules to ensure stricter code of conduct, and this will lead to greater discontent among students, causing more violence, and this is perpetuated in a vicious cycle. In view of this, one is compelled to think that students will never be able to set their own rules, yet there is always the possibility that students should be allowed to set their own rules since this must be stopped as soon as possible to prevent the violence from getting worse - it might have happened because the students are unhappy about the rules in the first place, and if they really are, then the rules should be set by them.

In conclusion, I reiterate that students should be allowed to set their own rules even though they might never have the chance to set their own rules. As backed up by the abovementioned evidences, it will never hurt to allow students to set their own rules as it might help curb the violence, or at a minor scale like in Singapore, lessen the students' unhappiness at some, if not all, the rules. This will help make the schools a happier place to study in. Plus, we will never know till we try.

What is an exposition?

"Definitions of exposition on the Web: a systematic interpretation or explanation (usually written) of a specific topic" (http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USSG292SG304&defl=en&q=define:exposition&ei=qrHQSZ3NNpGNkAW4o9zMCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title).

I think exposition is where everything is introduced. The characters, the setting, the time, the place, the problem, the basic essence of any piece of decent text. It is information that is offered to readers to help them understand the plot, characters, or setting in a story. Exposition is "telling, not showing, and passive rather than active" (Bethamos). It is also a tool as it can be used effectively to strengthen the flow of a story. Within the context of fiction, exposition is the fiction-writing mode for conveying information. Exposition in fiction may be delivered through various means, such as through a character of the fiction work, personal journals, and so on. In a nutshell, the purpose of exposition is to inform the readers about the plot, character, setting, and theme of the essay/story.