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.