Google is undoubtedly best search engine, because it acts as the best filter for results, eliminating the most number of irrelevant search options in all the available search engines. As a result, it has revolutionized the way we search for information, crafting out a new way for research completely. Some people have speculated that Google may become the world's next manifestation of libraries, and may even oust libraries out of the information gateway completely. I feel that while Google brings us much benefit and convenience, libraries must still remain in their place and not be replaced completely by Google.

With an automatic search that takes less than a second, Google obviously provides a much faster search for information as compared to the arduous hours of research for literature materials at a neighbourhood or regional library. However, with this accelerated access to information, our work is completed much faster than before and even more in-depth research can be executed, in turn benefiting the society much more than before. In addition, more work and research can be done in the same period of time, resulting in an increased net work and research. This stimulates society to improve at an expoential speed thus we, as members of society can reap the benefits that this will bring. However, some critics argue that searching for information with Google instead of going to the library would lead to the decay of virtues such as patience, causing us to be extremely impatient and complain for even a few seconds of waiting. They argue that the long and tiring search for information in the library trains our perseverance and this cannot be trained using Google's almost instataneous search results. Well, take a deep breath and rethink about the significance of patience. Firstly, back in ancient China, some academics travelled across cities and territories just to search for one particular book, suffering dehydration and starvation across deserts, with some people even dying along the way. When such information was housed in libraries, people welcomed the decision, rather than arguing that people are less trained in enduring starvation and dehydration just to search for one particular book. This was because they viewed that society could progress faster by housing books in libraries rather than in some secluded area which people paid their lives for just to find that book and they welcomed it as a convenience. From this, we can understand the unchanging fact that society is constantly improving. Just as when books should be centralised in libraries when society was improving them, books in libraries should inevitably be digitalised as society improves towards the future.
Secondly, from the scenario above, we can also understand that some virtues would become obselete at least in the field of information as society progresses. Just as enduring dehydration and starvation is now totally obselete in searching for information, patience would inevitably lose its significance when searching for information as society continues to progress. To put it in another way, patience as a virtue in the field of information was needed when literature was housed in libraries because it was compatible with the arduous process needed to search for relevant material.

In addition, the Internet transcends physical boundaries and Google which is a major proponent on the internet, serves the same purpose. It would be impossible to travel to the world's largest Library of Congress for a casual visit to the library, but we can search for the same type and order to information available in the Library of Congress without making a physical visit there. Hence, Google benefits us greatly by providing information that is not commonly available easily to us, as compared to the arduous hours of information searching at local libraries which will not yield as much information as Google does.

Lastly, the internet provides the most up to date information, unlike the library which provides information that is not updated. In the library, information is shelved up and left there to be browsed by visitors, rarely removed for ages. This brings no benefit to researchers who wish to retrieve the latest information about their research area. To these researchers, the Internet is a more viable option because it filters out results that are outdated and serve little or no significance.

Nevertheless, the library still deserves its place in the future, because library materials are undoubtedly much more reliable than internet information. Literature in library are manually selected, browsed through and vetted by a panel of librarians before they are allowed to take their place on library shelves, while information available straight from the Internet are mostly anonymous. These people may contribute false material onto the Internet, sometimes without them even knowing it. As a result, these false information is passed on and we would receive the wrong information.

In conclusion, although Google will make its way to become the world's premier information giant, libraries still cannot be overtaken and has its significance. Therefore, it deserves to stay on in the future.

The GEP programme started in 1984 as a means to allow every student to learn at his or her own pace, in line with the New Education System promoted by the Ministry of Education, amidst public criticisms which carried on till present. To me, I feel that although GEP promotes elitism, it is the best education strategy given Singapore's past and current situation.

Singapore has always been lacking in physical resources and she can only depend on her own citizens. Sadly, most top talents in Singapore prefer to search for greener pastures overseas, resulting in a 'brain drain' problem. To solve this problem, the government has been encouraging foreign talents to come to Singapore. Although there is a large influx of foreign talents as it will make us politically and economically vulnerable and is only a short term solution. On the other hand, GEP is a double edged sword. Firstly, GEP serves to fully develop and utilise local academic talents and to groom them to undertake professional and research jobs locally, thus benefitting Singapore's economy in research and development. Secondly, GEP students are less likely to search for greener pastures elsewhere because they had been taught to appreciate Singapore for identifying and grooming them for their future and also the jobs offered for GEP students are among the best available jobs in Singapore. In this way, the problem of brain drain would be solved effectively.

Moreover, GEP students are among the top 1% of the whole of Singapore. By grouping them together, it stimulates competition and accelerating learning. It is also necessary to do so because if these students are left to study among mainstream students, they will tend to do much better than their mainstream counterparts. This would inevitably create complacency among such students, who think that they can pass with flying colours even though they had been slacking throughout. As a Confucianistic society, the only ticket to success in Singapore's education system is to work harder than others, since hardwork is always paramount over intelligence. Therefore, GEP seeks to prevent academic elites from thinking that they can excel by pure intelligence, because they are placed in an environment with people of the same calibre as them, causing lessons and assessments to be of a much higher level and causing GEP students to attain a lower score than mainstream tests.

However, while I agree with GEP grooming elites, I am concerned about the social stigma and division by introducing GEP. Since the selection test for GEP was carried out in Primary 3, all the country's top 1% academic elites are singled out when they were only Primary 3, when they are enjoying their childhood and most of them wading in childhood innocence. Presently, we are neglecting other potential academic elites by placing the selection test so early in their education years. We need to bear in mind that not all students can show their academic talents at a tender age of 9. Hence, it is integral that we provide opportunities to enter such people at a later stage of their education years. Not too long ago, MOE has scraped the GEP intake at Primary 6 because most students could not catch up with the accelerated programme in GEP. Therefore, I would propose that GEP be open to everybody and not lock those academic elites indentified at Primary 3 inside this programme. GEP should open its doors to accept any student who can prove himself or herself to be able to integrate into the accelerated programme and to survive in it, while current GEP students should also be given the absoute autonomy to opt out of the programme at any time if their results show that they cannot cope in the programme.

Besides, since GEP is seen as the best possible avenue to success in life, students and parents tend to get over anxious about obtaining a place in GEP. This causes unnecessary competition that does not benefit the student nor the parent at all. For the student, when he or she should be focusing on trying out new things (school acts as a cushion for failures), the student rather places importance on getting into the GEP, which may cause foul play in the worst case scenario, resulting in dire social impact, because the following generations of students will lose more and more of their childhood, being unable to enjoy their childhood years. For parents, they will compete against each other, striving to get their child into the GEP. In turn, the negative consequence of this balls down the the students themselves, as parents bog them down with tuitions after tuitions, giving them no room to pursue their childhood activities. This finally causes an unhealthy society which is detrimental to Singapore as a whole. As such, the government should stress that GEP is not the best way to attain success, but rather an arena for academic elites to learn at their suitable pace. The biggest challenge in this method is to overcome the inferiority complex between GEP and mainstream students.

In conclusion, GEP is a necessary evil, given Singapore's current economic, social and political circumstances. Of course the ideal case would be equal education for everybody, but it is simply not possible to achieve that in Singapore's Confucianistic and meritocratic education system. Rather, we can work towards the ideal scenario by allowing GEP to be an open doored programme, allowing students to enter and leave the programme more freely, instead of locking them up in the programme after a few months in GEP.

Not too long ago, PM Lee has passed a decision to build an Integrated Resort with the highlight of it being the casino. This has sparked up much public debates and many people have criticized the government for neglecting the social repercussions that will inevitably be brought about. As for myself, I do not support the casino decision either. The social downfalls brought about is much severe than the economic boons brought about. Some of the social downfalls may even infringe the economic boons too.

To begin with, introducing gambling in Singapore causes moral values which had once built up Singapore to decay rapidly. Since Singapore's independence in 1965, sweat and toil has been the building block of Singapore's success, propelling Singapore from a third world country to a first world country, evolving it from an inconspicuous boat to a gigantic ferry in the sea of international recognition. On the other hand, gambling suggests that success can be attained through luck without any toil, except for the trip to the casino of course. Encouraging gambling therefore causes our national beliefs of being hardworking and thrifty to erode away and is incompatible with Singaporeans, who are still stalwart supporters of Confucian beliefs that shaped Singapore into what it is today. Therefore, the government has not considered national interest before passing this policy.

As Singapore continues to advocate gambling legally, the gambling business will grow rapidly, soon causing Singapore be akin to Macau, whose main business is gambling. Although our government promises that such a scenario would not happen, but it is an inevitable fact that gambling will be the major business once started, because gambling achieves success after a short period and we would be addicted to reap even more success by encouraging its growth in Singapore. Presently in Macau, most students are not keen to further their studies because working in local casinoes there would already meet their monthly expenses. Singapore may suffer the same consequence if casinoes were allowed to prosper here.

Moreover, the concept of an integrated resort was published after observing other cities like Macau, Las Vegas and Genting whose casino business brought about much economic prosperity and at the same time functioning well. These cities do not have a conspicuously high crime rate, thus our government felt that we could do the same and benefit from building casinoes. Unfortunately, Singapore is unlike Macau, Las Vegas and Genting. Macau belongs to China, Las Vegas belongs to United States and Genting belongs to Malaysia, while Singapore is a country by itself. It also means that while Macau, Las Vegas and Genting concentrate on gambling, their respective countries are not gambling-centered as a whole, unlike Singapore which would be sucked into the spiral of gambling once it opens casinoes.

Spiralling into a gambling-centered business also means that Singapore's economy is no longer diversified as it was always so. While other well known gambling cities focuses on gambling as their primary source of income, Singapore cannot blindly follow their example. These gambling cities can depend on other states or the whole country for financial assistance lest they fail in their gambling business, while Singapore would not be able to do so, for the simple fact that Singapore is a nation on its own. As mentioned above, gambling would inevitably be Singapore's primary soure of revenue once casinoes are operational. Gambling, like any other entertainment, will lose its popularity one day and Singapore will suffer drastic losses to its economy once that happens. Hence, operating casinoes serve limited economic benefits and even places Singapore in an even more vulnerable position.

Even if we do not consider how gambling will eventually become Singapore's primary source of income, the very fact that social problems will arise once casinoes are open contradicts with the rationale of opening casinoes. The rationale of casinoes does not rest fully on building up Singapore's economy even further, but also to encourage business partners to visit Singapore to host meetings thus improving tourism. When casinoes are open, no matter how much measures are put in place to minimize the common detriments of gambling - organised crimes, loan sharks etc., there are bound to be an increasing trend of them once casinoes are open. Crime rates will increase at a worrying rate and loan sharks would spray more paints and hang more pig's head on doors. More citizens would be oppressed loan sharks or the increasing crime rates, causing the number of suicide cases to increase few folds. As a result, Singapore will be trapped in this vicious series of events and Singapore would become a nearly lawless society which will be dreadfully chaotic and tumultuous. Will business partners and investors come to such a state of anarchy? Therefore, the aim of opening a casino would not be fulfilled and Singapore will deprove economically and socially.

In conclusion, operating casinoes does not serve the improve Singapore economically and would even detrack Singapore from its path of continuing success, because of Singapore's geographical and social disadvantages. Casinoes are an unfeasible option to improve Singapore's economy and therefore, Singapore should search for other avenues to truly upgrade its economy, social and political status and rule out the idea of casinoes completely.

The Influenza A H1N1 virus, previously and more commonly known as the swine flu, is a viral mutation between the H5N1 avian flu, the common human flu and the flu in swines. Originated in Mexico, this virus has crossed seas and oceans and is a pandemic worldwide. As the saying goes, 'Once bitten, twice shy', several countries have took early measures to prevent or to contain this virus because they had feared that the dreadful atmosphere during the SARS period, where close to 10000 people were infected with this deadly disease would rekindle. However, some measures were adequate and effective while others are not. Nevertheless, compared to SARS, these measures are far better.

Before we begin, 'adequate' used in the context of such measures refers to how much impact does the measure do in preventing or containing the virus, while 'effective' refers to how positive the implications of such measures are.

Starting from the origin in Mexico, the government has minimized public gatherings by measures such as closing all schools and closing night life operators for 10 days. The government has also launched campaigns to educate the people to wash their hands and wear surgical masks. However, these measures are not adequate enough. Firstly, there are insufficient surgical masks so not everyone has one. Even if one person does not have a surgical mask, the society is in danger of falling into an epidemic. If that person sneezes, all the viral particles would be suspended in the air, which would ultimately float into various homes. At home, many people take off their masks, but this is the opportunity when these viral particles enter the body and have a whale of a time infecting cells and killing phagocytes. To minimize the spread of the virus, everyone needs to have a mask, but the government is not doing so.

Next, let us consider Hong Kong, who was hit badly by the SARS pandemic. During the SARS pandemic, the Hong Kong government had done badly in preventing the spread of SARS. Two of the most grave mistakes were the failure to provide sufficient masks for its citizens and especially doctors in hospitals, and also the Amoy Garden incident. For the first mistake, the Hong Kong government had a short of mask supply in hospitals. This resulted in a number of hospital caregivers to enter SARS wards without masks. The implications of this is pretty obvious, that these caregivers contracted SARS and spreaded the disease to other patients and colleagues in the hospital. Many doctors, nurses and patients died in hospitals during the course of SARS, even patients who visited the hospital merely to seek medical advice for their normal cold. The Hong Kong government had to close down the entire hospital as a result and many normal patients could not seek medical advice. For the second mistake, Amoy Gardens, a middle class housing estate, was the most badly hit area. More than 300 people were infected with SARS there and people just contracted SARS when their neighbours had it. This incident occured because the water pipes had serious problems which provided a habitable environment for the virus to replicate and reproduce, when it could have been prevented by maintaining the water pipes such that they do not leak. Imagine all the residents in one housing estate having to move to another place for isolation!

Nonetheless, the Kong government has learnt from its mistakes and have done extremely adequate measures to prevent and contain the spread of the H1N1 disease. When H1N1 first made its visit to Hong Kong in Metro Park Hotel, all the residents in that hotel were quarantined on the spot and the infected tourist was taken to be isolated. These people were given Tamiflu tablets and water. This measure is very effective, because it was implemented early enough. Had it been implemented later, the flu would already be circulating around the whole hotel and the flu would impatiently barge its way out of the hotel to infect even more people in Hong Kong. Besides, quarantining these people when the infected is only brought to the hospital after some time would not be feasible either. Since this flu would be spread around the whole hotel, quarantining tourists at that time would mean infecting all of them with the flu. Therefore, this measure is adequate because it was done at the right time. Nevertheless, this measure is not effective. Although the most direct implication was that the flu was properly contained, it partly damaged Hong Kong's international image and also foreign relationships with other countries. Some of the victims condemned this measure because they painfully complained that they had lost several major business dealings by lagging in the hotel for 7 days, while the Mexican government and its citizens critisized Hong Kong for its prejudice against Mexicans just because they origninated H1N1. But hereby I wish to remind those who lost major business that they were quarantined for the good cause. What if they had already contracted swine flu? If they were allowed to roam freely around the world, it would cause the flu to leave its fluprints on every country and society, further harming the already existent economic depression brought about by inital stages of swine flu. If this flu worsens, the economic depression would augment exponentially. Couple this with the financial crisis experienced since last year, the total economic implications would be astronomical and for these businessmen, their companies might be swept away and close down. Wouldn't it be an even disastrous consequence than losing a major business? To those who critisize the government of discrimination them, I wish to remind them that all countries should work together to fight against swine flu. If governments continue to dwell on political issues, they would lose sight of the common goal which is to eradicate the flu. Swine flu would then seize the opportunity to do a complete wipe-out of all mankind. Would that not be a worse implication than suppressing the discrimination put up against them to contain the flu?

In conclusion, the current measure taken to contain the spread of swine flu is adequate, but the effectiveness may not be perfect, because countries still childishly focus on political issues when an imminent threat is looming nearer to the whole world. Instead of focusing on poltiical issues, let us work hand in hand, united always, to eliminate swine flu and to benefit all mankind.

The Advanced Medical Directive Act (AMD) is a legal document that patients can sign to allow the doctors to cease using any life-sustaining devices if one is terminally ill or unconscious. However, many people argue that it is no different from euthanasia and to some extent, suicide. To me, the AMD truly is another form of euthanasia because it serves to end your life and allieviate all you suffering, just as euthanasia does. The moral and ethical implications are similar too.

To begin with, the AMD would cause our loved ones great pain and suffering. When we fall into a coma, our loved ones would always stay by our side and wish that some day we would wake up. If we were to sign the AMD, our loved ones would have no choice but to watch us die peacefully yet sadly. Just as our loved ones cannot bear to see us die through euthanasia, they would not bear to see us die through AMD either. Besides, we have always seen in movies how painful is it for someone to take off the loved one's respirator, which is equivalent to murdering them. Similarly, they cannot bear to see doctors removing the respirator from us if we are in a coma. They would start to blame themselves for failing to stop us from signing to AMD when we are the ones who firmly chose our destiny.

Moreover, signing the AMD is morally wrong and should be breaching the law, just as commiting suicide and euthanasia does. Many countries condemn the use of euthanasia albeit it being 'mercy killing', because if one is dead then there is no chance for one to regain his life, but if we allow the person to remain in a coma there is still chance that he might come back after years or decades. If we are thinking from their perspective, AMD destroys this chance of survival but if their loved ones signed it, they have no choice but to watch their loved ones die when this death could either be prolonged or avoided.

Secondly, on the theological frontier, AMD is a direct affront to many religions. Who are we to play God, by disrespecting his plan for us and ending our lives sooner than God expected? In Christianity, God made us in his image hence he is the omniscient and divine ruler of our lives. Since the AMD serves as a form of suicide through indirect euthanasia, we are scoffing at his ability to control our lives by signing the AMD. What if God had planned this tragic coma as a segment in our lives and expected to wake us up after some time? If we sign the AMD, we are preventing his ability to do so, which is the biggest theological sin.

In conclusion, the AMD is a form of euthanasia both morally, ethically and theologically. The best remedy for AMD is to abolish it completely. If we ban euthanasia and prohibit suicide, we must also do so for AMD. It is not logical for a jurisdiction to contradict in this way, since it passes the message "It is okay to carry out euthanasia and commit suicide, so long as it is done in the name of the Advanced Medical Directive Act." In a nutshell, we must discourage AMD as much as we discourage euthanasia and suicide.

The Human Organ Transplant Act(HOTA) is a culmination of robbery and dealing. In this Act, all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are automatically signed up for this Act, except for Muslims, unless they opt in. Everyone who is opted in may opt out, but the deal lurking is to practically give up the chance of an organ transplant should you ever need one when one opts out of the programme. This default opting in system results in foregoing consent to donate organs for most individuals in Singapore. However, is it viable to do so? To me, it is not viable at all.

Let us begin with the most fundamental principle of the human sanctity to life. This basic theory differentiates humans with animals, because we are of a higher calibre than them. It also implies that while the lives of animals may be used to satisfy our basic needs for life --food, water and shelter, the lives of humans must not be used in the same way, at least for meeting the needs of lives of humans and their counterparts of lower calibre. To put it in another way, we are the sole owner of our lives and no one can tamper with it to satisfy their own needs, which is the gist of the human sanctity to life. However, the HOTA contradicts this principle, because of the automatic conscription to this programme. Without the consent of the citizens and PRs, they are entered into the programme regardless. The ultimate finger of blame undoubtedly points to the government, because in doing so, the government is owning the organs of its citizens and PRs. When all the organs are collectively owned by the state, the individual is merely a container to hold the organs which ultimately is the property of the state. This may sound ridiculous, but it is indeed the implications of HOTA and the government is the owner of all the organs instead of the citizens and PRs.

This coupled with automatically opting in for the program makes HOTA no different from daylight robbery, especially for illiterate people and it is morally wrong in two ways. Firstly, by supporting HOTA, we get to jump the queue for an organ transplant. Jumping the queue may seem trivial, but in this case, it concerns life and death, which is no laughing matter. Cutting a queue for free stuff would mean robbing another's rightful chance to obtain the giveaway, but on a greater scale, cutting this queue would mean robbing another person's rightful chance for a new life. In a nutshell, by eliminating other's rightful chance for an item or service which we are unworthy of having, it equates to robbery and HOTA is parallel to this. Secondly, by joining this programme, one is consenting to the government authorities to take away one's organs to benefit others when one is cerified brain dead. However, without seeking deliberate consent from the citizens and the PRs and signing them up for this, it is no different from robbing them of their organs. This is analogous to a robber snatching your wallet and pours out all the money to a nearby beggar. Under common law, that robber is still convicted, even though his motive is to benefit other people. However because of human rights, that robber still infiltrated my human rights to property, so he is liable under the law. Similarly, is it right for the government to act as a robber snatching our organs to benefit other people without our explicit consent? This is even so for our illiterate counterparts. The most viable way for government authorities to spread this new amendment to the public is through notices, which are mainly words. Being illiterate, these people would not get the message and would not have a single hint that they are automatically enlisted into the program. Is it fair for government authorities to remove their organs when they are brain dead without their knowledge of it? Removing one's organs without one's explicit consent is immoral enough, removing one's organs without one's knowledge is even worse. Hence, HOTA is no different from daylight robbery.

To make matters even more unbelievable, HOTA is not just daylight robbery, but robbery with threat. In this Act, one can opt out of the program, but risk lagging behind the queue when one needs an organ transplant. It may seem perfectly logical for some, but this Act concerns life and death, not just any common commercial paraphernalia. It is similar to threatening a victim whom you are robbing not to retaliate or he would be killed secretly. Robbing a person is already against the law, but threatening the person is even more grave than pure robbing and the punishments would be harsher. By logical extension, would this not apply to the government robbing others of their organs and threatening them in doing so?

By imposing this deal there are many implications. Firstly, donating money should be from our sincerity and our heart and donating organs utilise the same theory. We all condemn donation drives which entitle a person to a lucky draw if he donates a certain amount to an organisation, because those people are donating for the sake winning more than they donate during the lucky draw, hence it contradicts totally with the rationale of donation, which is to help others. Similarly, donating organs should be due to the pressing urge to give another person, who is trapped in his illness, a crevice to escape such that he would gain a new life. However, HOTA encourages people to donate organs because they may get to cut to queue should they ever need a organ. People therefore donate organs should they be brain dead so they would get another organ first if they ever need an organ transplant, not because of a genuine urge to save other people's lives.

Secondly, donating organs should not serve as a ticket for people to board the express train to cut the organ transpant queue. Donating organs should be seen as an excellent moral deed, but degrading this act of love to simply a give and take exchange is unforgivable. It is similar to the donation drives which promise us an exclusive gift when we donate, but we all condemn it as being low class and crude. Should this not apply to donating organs as well? Hence, donating organs should be an act of love and the donor should not receive any form of benefit because it degrades the whole act and the donor himself also.

Lastly, by encouraging this Act, we are merely weighing a person's worth of receiving an organ transplant based on whether he would donate his organs if he is brain dead. By doing so, we are neglecting other factors. When this recepient who participates in HOTA is compared to another non-participant who is the sole breadwinner of the family, who should receive the organ first? According to the law, it is the person who participates in HOTA, but by our emotions, it should be the breadwinner, since the whole family depends on him for survival. If he cannot receive his organ, the family would continue to live in despair, depression, hopelessness and dejected. Hence, whether a person is taking part in HOTA should not be paramount over the other factors. Rather, it should be the last factor to be considered when two people are deemed worthy of receiving the organ because they are in the same circumstances.

To ensure that HOTA is fair and just, we should allow people to opt in rather than making them opt out. Opting in would be hard, because it requires civics and moral education to Singaporeans for them to be less ignorant about others in society, but it is still achievable. We should also abolish the priority to organ transplant to people participating in HOTA because they should be doing so out of love and concern and not of the benefits than this would bring them.

In conclusion, it is not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs because it is wrong morally and ethically. To make HOTA a better policy, we need to alter it such that it is fair and just by removing wrong elements of HOTA.

Not too long ago, the government has passed the decision to build in integrated resort (IR) in Singapore, based on the reasons that tourism is on the decline and Singapore's only way to survive in the globalised economy is through tourism. This is because Singapore does not have the advantage of manpower like China does, nor the resources that Indonesia has due to Singapore's infertile soil, leaving Singapore with the sole tourism resource. However, I oppose to this decision to build an IR.

I feel that the Integrated Resort would result in as much problems as a casino would do. In the IR, the government has stressed that the integrated resort should not be stereotyped as a casino, but rather like Genting Highlands, or an NTUC resort, except with the presence of a casino which could occupy a small percentage of the area. However, 'Integrated Resort' is just another flowery and fluffy name for the word casino. Even though the casino would occupy a small area, it would not minimize the impact of the casino based on its physical state by occupying a relatively small area. People have the ability to head towards the casino and not towards the other attractions, even if the casino is very small. It is illogical to reason that people would head towards the theme park over the casino if the theme park occupies the majority of the land area than the casino. If the minds of these people are conditioned to gamble and win big money, they would automatically head to the casino regardless. Therefore, a small area does not equate to less impact, neither does a large area increase the popularity of a place. If a large area solely leads to increased popularity, all stores would rent the largest store area possible to maximise its popularity. But in reality, this is not seen.

Referring to the casino as small and thus minimizing its problems also indirectly means that its problems would be of less importance. However, this is not parallel to the political ideology of the Singapore society. The governing philosophy of Singapore is democracy and not utilitarianism. Consider an slum estate in a society where everyone in that estate lives in poverty and many social problems arise such as theft and murder. Although this estate is very small and makes up to less than 1% of the total land area, does that mean we can neglect this estate and let the problems continue to worsen without intervention? If we were to turn a blind eye to this estate, it would be utilitarian since we are merely maximising the happiness of the majority in teh society by focusing on their needs rather than the critical and pressing problems in this estate. Similarly, the problems that the casino causes may only affect a small number of habitual gamblers, but the Singapore society which strays far from utilitarianism, should place these of higher priority even though it affects a small percentage of Singapore citizens. Therefore, I oppose to the government's rationale of minimizing the casino size in order to minimize problems because these two entities are utterly unrelated.

Some stalwart supporters of the integrated resort would argue that integrated resorts are a neccesary evil, because it is the best way to maintain Singapore's competitiveness in the globalised world and its benefits outweigh the social impacts of such a decision. They opine that in the financial crisis that the world is experiencing now, building integrated resorts can increase availbility of jobs and thus minimize the percentage of jobless people. Generating massive revenues from the casino can in turn benefit the majority of Singaporeans too. However, this argument is again sinking into the depths of utilitarianism once again. While more jobs are available and this benefits a number of freshmen who just entered into the workforce, we are neglecting the needs of a small number of people whose family members are habitual gamblers. The problems in these families would take a dive for the worse when the IR opens but this issue has not been a concern for the Parliament at all. Is casino the only solution to the current economic crisis? To me, it is not the best solution, since there are still a number of drawbacks to it. As an elaboration to the social impacts of casinoes, they include an increased crime rate and suffering of family members of habitual gamblers.

Due to gambling being a game of chance, some gambling addicts would go into the casino hoping to earn big money. The sense of greed is so strong that these gamblers would crave for more and more cash when they already win gambles. In this group of people, 10 out of 10 people walk out of the casino owing loan sharks an immense amount of cash. To make up for this loss, they go into the casino once again, yearning for a strike to pay back the loan. Instead they owe even more money. Loan sharks, in retaliation, would commit crimes to harass the victim. These include examples like spraying paint over their homes, physically harming the victim to intimidate him such that he would return the money on time, or even kidnapping the victim's child for ransom as payback! Crimes rates would increase as a result, compromising the security of the country. The implications of this is intricate. Just to name a few, investors would think twice before investing into Singapore and foreign talents would leave Singapore since it is unsafe to live in such an unstable country. To counter this problem, the government could step up measures such that it ahieves 'prevention over cure'. Right now, only people who have proof that they are financially secure are allowed entry. Even so, these people are banned access to ATM machines. Nevertheless, there is still a threat because these people may head to the nearest ATM machine or even bring in lots of cash into the casino. Hence, we could step up measures such as imposing restrictions on the amount they can gamble per month. This can allow for a fixed amount of cash that can be gambled thus shielding the gambler from debt.

Family members of gamble addicts would be affected too. Family members can be affected in 2 ways. Firstly, when parents gamble, children are disadvantaged. Parents who are gamble addicts would drain their money in the casino, in turn depriving their chidren of their basic needs such as education and even enough pocket money to buy food and drinks. Such children would be disdvantaged in the competitive society since they lack a good education thus undermining their potential to succeed in the globalised society. Simultaneouly, parents who are gamble addicts spend more time in the casino than at home. Even if they are at home, the children would continue to be neglected as their parents are mourning over their losses at the casino and the prospects of being harassed by the loan sharks. These children tend to grow up abnormally in terms of emotion and they would be at the losing end in years to come. Besides, when their friends know if their situation, they would be a stigma at school. Competitive parents would instruct their child to stray away from these children for fear that their children would be disadvantaged in any way. As such, children of gamble addicts would feel neglected. Secondly, when adults gamble, their aged parents who depend on them for wonderful golden years would be deprived of such opportunity. When all the money has been lost in the casino, these adults would not chip in any money for their parents basic expenses. These aged parents would then reenter the workforce, but with their weak and frail bodies, they would suffer in the workforce and shorten their life span as a result; with their obselete skills in the knowledge based economy, they would not stand a good chance to find a better-paying job, taking the roles of cleaners, sweepers or construction workers. The method to counter this is to educate the young generations of harmful drawbacks of entering the casino. This achieve a double-pronged effect. The most direct and short term impact is when children persuade their parents to stop gambling by reminding them of the dire consequences of gambling habitually. The indirect and long term impact is when these younger generation grow up to be strong in their resistance towards the devil of gambling and truly minimizing social problems in the generations to come, since less people gamble.

In conclusion, crimes rates would not fall if the casino is built over a small area, since they are separate ideas and entities. This would lead to social problems such as an increased crime rate which would backfire on Singapore in the long run instead of benefitting the country, and family members suffering as a result. Prevention is better than cure, hence educating the younger generation and to augment restrictions on the criteria for entry would help to prevent such problems from arising so we do not need to solve them in the first place. Moreover, such measures would truly minimize the crime rate, rather than minimizing casino area.