http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070520/3/32532.html

This article is certainly news of great importance. It shows the return of a veteran of Singapore politics, and another important member of the opposition. The fact Jeyeratnam has returned with the intent to form another political party can only mean that there will be more opposition to the PAP and therefore a much more diverse political scene. This is likely to be beneficial in aiding Singapore from becoming a one-party state and promoting democracy.

Certainly, the fact that Jeyeratnam has returned has the potential for much political impact, most of which is positive for Singapore’s political scene, which has been dominated by the PAP almost effortlessly in recent years. However, as with all else, there can be negative consequences as well. Jeyeratnam has advocated reform tirelessly, and many fear that reform may well introduce much unneeded imbalance in growing Singapore that can only have negative effects. Similarly, there is the possibility that Jeyeratnam would be bankrupted by the Lee family once again, which would almost certainly snuff out his political career.

This article is a bit unique itself because in addition to Jeyeratnam’s views, there are opposing views as well, stated without quoting in the article. This is quite different from other articles and adds an extra bit of depth to the article; it shows that there are conflicting opinions regarding certain ideas and gives the reader food for thought on political issues in Singapore. Indeed, even outside of that, the article also provides points of view that go against the PAP, such as that of Amnesty International, for which I think, gives the article more coverage depth.

In regards to Jeyeratnam himself, one cannot help but hope somewhat that he is at the very least successful. If he does succeed, it can only mean some good things as it is unlikely he will be able to invoke massive reform, but will in the process give a new opinion and voice in the Parliament and provide more competition to the PAP, who may well be pushed to give better options to the citizens to maintain more seats. At the same time, it would be a much brighter future for Jeyeratnam himself after long years of bankruptcy and certainly a much welcomed change in his life.

Luckily, it appears that for this article there are not many influences that can give cause for my being prejudiced or biased. Since young I have taken very little interest in politics and do not care very much about my family members tendency towards the opposition parties. There may be a possibility of being biased towards Jayaretnam for being bankrupted, which I consider as a rather bad fate, but otherwise I have tried to be objective at all times possible and believe that this article does not show any major signs of prejudice.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070510/5/singapore275191.html

Generally, this article is one of many that I find hard to truly understand. It deals with teenagers that for the most part, I do not think I am similar to. But it is meaningful even if I am not similar to them, on a societal level, because of the social problem that this article portrays, and personally, because it shows me some problems that I myself may well face that are common associated with youth.

The article as well points out that contrary to the belief of most Singaporeans, teenagers are able to cope with problems by themselves and also to make the right choices even after making some wrong ones. All of this really shows that people are not condemned after making certain choices because they can still break out of what they got themselves into. Although a simple idea in itself, this idea seems rather untrue; there have been many classic cases of ‘problem children’ that we are exposed to, that all portray people who take wrong path in life and unredeemable. The article on the other hand, provides evidence to the contrary.

Once again, the article does however have certain flaws, although it is arguable that the laws regarding media prevent them from fixing these flaws, which is that only one point of view is represented, or if several points of view are shown, that these points of view all concur. All the points of view in this article all speak about the positive effects of the centres, hotline, and programme on the youths. Of course, even if there were divergent views, it is unlikely that it would have been allowed to be published, but otherwise other views could only help the article. Without portraying opposing ideas, the article glaringly points out to the reader that not all ideas may be provided, only positive ones.

It is not difficult to empathize with the youths in this article. The article already points out that the youths are being led back to the right track in life with the help of the centers and hotline and it is quite obvious that they are happy at the moment. The next logical step would be to gauge the response at a more in-depth level and then see if it would be beneficial to open more centres or another hotline. Another alternative would be to have more focus on certain troubling issues; the boy-girl relationship problems stated in the article are an excellent example.

In closing, I must of course state that in my views and opinions there may be certain misjudgments. One example of this would simply be how I tend to make sweeping statements and assume that those teenagers who get into fights and other similar behaviour are juvenile delinquents who have no positive side. This is of course unlikely to be true, and there may well be several exceptions, but because of the majority, such biased statements are made for convenience.