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.

Imagine yourself heading towards to be enlisted for National Service. Having 10 straight As in A level, you are entitled to a place in Harvard University and a prestigious scholarship recognised internationally undoubtedly goes to you. However, the unmerciful and unforgiving law states bluntly that all men who turn 18 must enlist for National Service. Moreover, your brother explicitly told you about the hardships. You cannot believe yourself, forgoing such a golden opportunity in life for a sick and taxing army life. Cursing the law, you take the courage and attempt to evade NS.

The above scenario may seem dramatic, but the gist of it generally applies to all NS evaders. Through the years since the introduction of NS in Singapore, dodgers have invented ingenious ways to turn against the law, including 'I have asthma' when the last time it happened was three years old, 'I broke my bone' etc. These cliche excuses is analogous to evading homework by reasoning 'my dog ate my homework'. Surprisingly, these excuses are still accepted, since the administrative staff who take charge of such matters do not have enough experience to differentiate between truth and lie.

Investigating further, this trend occurred simply because of three reasons. Firstly, society becoming more open leading to a globalised society. Secondly, maternal love for children shielding them away from the torments of NS. Thirdly, NSmen themselves having a NS phobia. These three reasons are interlinked and I shall begin with society.

Since the 90s, major inventions such as the computer in early 90s, internet in late 90s and the evolution of air travel have been introduced. With more communication between countries, the society has become exponentially competitive. To succeed in today's society, one must specialise in a wide array of disciplines. Needless to say, a university degree functions merely as an escape pass from the lowest strata of society. Singapore, being a small and open economy, demands even more than other societies. Blended with Confucian values, students in Singapore society compete since a young age, where parents force them to go for tuitions since kindergarten or even pre school. This instills a competitive spirit in the young children and they grow up losing their childhood innocence. In a nutshell, Singapore society has caused parents to be as competitive as the children which grow up to be competitive as well, leading to a viscious cycle.
Sadly, National Service has not changed much since its introduction when Singapore became independent, except minor alterations like shifting from Nee Soon to P. Tekong etc. It is opined that NS cannot keep up with today's society, since during the infant stages of National Service, society is much less competitive as it is today.

The implications of the ever-evolving competiveness in society and the stagnant nature of National Service stretches over a wide spectrum. For example, more international scholarships are available across oceans and seas, treading on Singapore grounds. Singaporean A level graduates are mostly much more competitive than their peers because they are considered the 'cream of the crop'. Being worthy candidates of these scholarship, they would have high aspirations in life since they feel that they should show to the world the products of their hardwork all these years, to prevent it from going in vain. Such a once-in-a-lifetime scholarship is unarguably the most precious element in their lives since it serves as the key to possible success in life. This scholarship is so important that National Service is seen as frail and minute and hinders them from success in life. They would believe that by taking up National Service, they are toyed around by the government. Since they were young they had worked hard to achieve today's result because the government shaped the society such that getting good grades is to sole and only way to succeed in life. On the other hand, when they have reached the turning point to success, the government imposes compulsory National Service to divert them from success. Feeling manipulated by the government and hoping to fulfill their dreams, these young men defy the law to skip National Service, compensating for possible loss. In addition, their strong ego prompts them that remaining in Singapore would not bring them success in the globalised economy. Thus, they flee to other countries, worsening the problem of 'brain drain'. Losing local talent equates to having to attract foreign talent to maintain its economic metabolism, increasing Singapore's vulnerability.

On the parents frontier, parents have already adapted to the competition in today's society and would stretch their children's fullest potential in order for them to succeed in society. Especially for parents whose children are the 'top notch' in the education system, they would shield their children from all types of distractions that would affect their progress. This greenhouse is impermeable to harms like other children weaker in studies, love relationships, camps, physical hardships and of course, National Service; while fully permeable to elements like assessment books, the person in class who gets an MSG of 1.0 every term without fail, professional tuition teachers etc. When their children possess thoughts of evading National Service, instead of persuading them to defend the country as a symbol of loyalty, the parents totally agree with the children and work out detailed plans to evade National Service. Some parents even go the extra mile and start sourcing for such information when their child is still in the mother's womb and confirmed a male, even without the child's consent! When the golden opportunity comes, parents would reach a state of hysteria and spontaneously pull their chidlren out from National Service, contributing to the number of NS dodgers. This coupled with the unwillingness of children to serve NS would lead to increased number of young men evading NS.

One interesting point to note is trepidation in young men towards National Service. Some of the enlisted NSmen have older male siblings who have gone through National Service and spread the dark side of NS to the younger siblings, sharing their experiences in NS. This biased viewpoint leads to phobia towards NS amongst these people. Sometimes, when these people observe their older sibling enduring hardship in National Service, they would start to generate a set of belief about National Service. Paranoid parents also encourage their children to think in this way in order to prevent enthusiasum in National Service which would lead to spontaneous but detrimental responces in their children.

Whatever the reason, we need to prescribe remedies to the situation perhaps by use of propaganda, which is one of the most direct ways. However, this method would only be effective if it is administered to children since young, perhaps in kindergarten. At that stage, the innocent young minds are open to all information and they will readily accept any ideas. As such, propaganda at such a stage should be based on shielding the children from criticism of National Service. Besides making sure that they do not have access to these information, the government should promote National Service to the children by inscribing nationalism in them and hence conditioning their minds such that enlisting for National Service when they turn 18 is an automatic event. Nevertheless, this is not totally feasible as it highly attracts major and harsh arrows of criticisms to the widely believed paternalistic and authoritarian government of Singapore.

To counter this, we should alter National Service by increasing its flexibility so that it is parallel to the globalised world. Propelling the nature of National Service would make it more modern. Two ways we can achieve this include rending the veils of restrictions of National Service. Since its introduction, National Service is the equivalent of the Army, causing stereotypes of National Service. It is believed that it is as harsh and gruelling as life as a soldier. I would propose that National Service be expanded beyond its barriers of limitations to accomodate the wide variety of Singaporean young men. All Singaporean men who turn 18 have different strengths and thus should contribute to society and the country in different ways. Unfortunately, National Service is generally wasting all these different talents by forcing almost all the young men to adhere to a common requirement which their strengths cannot complement to. Perhaps we could consider inviting people with great wits to serve National Service as battle strategy planners, instead of being the frontline warriors. This would bring their talents into good use, instead of straining them on the battlefield.

Another initiative could include postponing National Service for young men due for once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. If these people had the opportunity to grab the golden opportunity, they would most likely succeed. Coupled with the Confucian belief to remember our providers, these people would contribute back to Singapore and all of us would benefit as a result. However, if we were to limit their capabilities, they would remain as insignificant people and we have lost the chance to gain significance internationally. Hence, we could allow these people to achieve their dreams first, then require them to contribute back to society and serve National Service. When National Service is expanded into different disciplines, these people can contribute the society in a way which complements with their strengths.

In conclusion, there is indeed a trend of National Service evaders. However, instead of condemning them to prison or fines, why not accomodate their trepidations and concerns about National Service and alter it accordingly? We need to bear in mind National Service is to contribute back to society for what is has given us, not to administer hardships and tears to innocent young men. We also need to bear in mind that National Service is to instill faith amongst young men to the country, but how is that possible by the harsh and cruel discipline in National Service, which only generates complete loyalty to the commander and not the nation and society?

Advertisements have started in the ancient times, ever since there is more than one provider of the same goods or services. For example, two shops may be adjacent to each other and each store owner cuts the price of their goods and services to attract customers to their store. This is already a form of advertisement. In fact, advertisement started at this stage, albeit being simple and crude. Since then, advertisements have evolved into various mutations, ranging from TV ads to internet ads and even real people dressing themselves as the product meant for advertisement! Nevertheless, one identical rationale which is common in all these forms of advertisements and even through these years is to spread propaganda to the consumers.

Advertisements may not always work towards our benefit, because of the common rationale mentioned earlier. In order for the advertisement to succeed, it must prove to the consumers that the company and its products are a mark above the rest. To do this, it must obviously crush the other companies and their advertisements, if not their rivals would be on par or even be better than them. Take for example the Colgate toothpaste company advertisements, which always stresses the benefits of their toothpaste over conventional toothpastes, thus propelling Colgate toothpastes while forcing the conventional toothpaste to lag behind them. Moreover, in the process of doing so, most companies would compromise the moral standards of society for economic gain, in turn neglecting the benefit of us consumers.

In order to portray its own products in good light, even if the company's product really deserves the consumer's purchase, its advertisement has to be biased towards its own product. Most companies would make sure that the advertisement balls down to the central thesis point that its product is always one notch above its competitors, for the same price. In today's open economy, society believes in the survival of the fittest. As a result, advertisements need to show that its company is 'fit'. Some companies even explicit announce that it is the best, like Carlsberg. Carlsberg's slogan, 'probably the best wine in the world' is certainly the epitome of this group of advertisements. A visit to its corporate website would even reveal that it takes pride in this slogan, adapting it for further usage such as 'probably the best website in the world'. This restricts the consumer's right to evaluate a spectrum of different companies, to compare different companies and to decide on which product to buy, because such advertisements direct the consumer's attention to a specific company only. In the case of tobacco sales, this phenomenon would lead to more dire consequences. Some tobacco companies are so obsessed with generating enough revenue from tobacco sales that they have lost all sense of society responsibility. It is a known fact that any tobacco, even the 'healthiest' one, would lead to various complications such as heart attacks, yellow teeth, looking older, miscarriage etc. However, these evil advertisement managers proclaim that their tobacco is 'healthier'. In reality, their toacco would not be any healthier, because the health issues by smoking their tobacco would only arise longer than smoking conventional tobacco, but it would still occur in the long run. Moreover, the play on the word 'healthy' would lead to a misconception to the average smoker that this is a healthy smoke, which in itself is an oxymoron. Hence, although this mechanism helps to achieve the rationale of an advertisement, it does not benefit the consumer in any way and even harms them in the case of tobacco.

For the set of companies which advertise in a biased way, there is a subset of companies who employ exaggeration as their strategy in the battlefield of advertisement. These companies generally lack substance in their products. Lacking in substance can appear in a number of ways. To name a few, some products are completely useless and have no originality, or have defects which is detrimental to the product sales. Exaggeration serves as a veil to these problems in the product. For example, Beijing 101's famous advertisement focuses on the hair of an individual before and after treatment. For the critical thinker, the stark contrast would raise uncertainty about the service that Beijing 101 brings. Firstly, we are not sure of the individual's identity. Have we wondered if he is an employee of Beijing 101 spreading untrue information about the service? Secondly, have we considered the side effects of such treatment, which is long term and would only surface years after the treatment? Beijing 101's service may not necessarily be all harmful, but the advertisement is indeed exaggerating the beneficial aspects of the service to such an extent that consumers are unknowingly steered away cleverly from the possible harms of Beijing 101's service, owing them a full picture of the service provided and hindering the consumers ability to make an informed decision by weighing the pros and the cons. Taking the example of tobacco sales again, heartless advertisement managers exaggerate on a different scale. In contrast to Beijing 101's exaggeration of the benefits of their service, tobacco companies scale down the impacts of smoking. This is evident from companies abiding to the minimum that the law requires. Under the law, tobacco packets are instructed to display warning messages such as 'Smoking kills' on the cigarette pack. However, in the preliminary stages since this law was implemented, this notice was so miniscule that a magnifying glass is required to even make out the gist of the message. Government authorities have since then amended the law such that the notice need to be of a certain area. But even so, tobacco companies publish these notices just at the correct size. As we can see from these two examples, exaggeration obviously does not benefit the consumer at all.

Nonetheless, we have only discussed in the shoes of the consumer. By taking another angle and evaluating the situation in the shoes of the manager of the company, we can experience the stress liberated from our employer, to generate as much revenue as possible. Especially in this economic downturn, employees tend to obey employers as faithfully as ever, to prevent themselves from being washed away with the economic tsunami. In a typical scenario when the employer instructs the employee to start an adertisement campaign, the employee would not question the employer but the work tirelessly at the advertisement. In this competitive society, sometimes we may have no choice but the sacrifice a little of the moral obligation in order to secure our lives. However, I strongly urge everyone not to go overboard in doing so and making sure that such acts are reserved to the last resort. We should also constantly remind ourselves not to use this method to improve our living conditions, but merely to secure it.

Lastly, consumers need to exercise their discretion too. Advertisements are there to coax us consumers to purchasing their goods and services, but the decision still lies in our hands. We can decide whether to make that trip down to the shop or not. We can also decide whether to believe the advertisements or not. Sadly, advertisements are here to stay for as long as an economy is open. By thinking critically, we can avoid the pitfalls that these advertisements lay for us and not fall prey to the companies vying for innocent consumers.

In conclusion, advertisements use tactics such as biasedness and exaggeration to win the hearts of consumers. Consumers should retaliate by thinking critically and provide themselves with opportunities to have a macroview on different companies. They should not agree blindly to advertisements and be more savvy.