To read more about iHacked, click here


The very fact that this piece of news was published in the New York Times is testament to the rapid change in the society we live in. Our environment is becoming more and more saturated with technology and gadgetry, and these modern marvels are becoming more and more essential to our lives.

In the last twenty years technology has advanced at an amazing rate. Twenty years ago, the idea of a mobile phone was unheard of, but now nearly everyone in the developed world owns at least one, and more and more advanced models are popping up in the market, capable of being a planner, alarm clock, camera, music player and a phone.

However, the exponential and astronomical rise of the star of technology has brought along with it a whole slew of new problems, dilemmas, and moral and legal wrangles. How do you regulate gadgets that are now entering use so quickly and being replaced by even more advanced models so quickly that regulations trawling through the molasses of red tape and bureaucracy have no chance at keeping up?

Just a century ago, the pace of technology’s advance was markedly slower. New products and inventions, for example Thomas Edison’s electrical lighting, were slowly tried and tested. As they were being put into use on a large scale, the regulation of such appliances was brought along simultaneously. However, in our modern day and age, new technologies move just far too quickly for notoriously slow bureaucracies.

The case reported in this article comments on the “battle” independent users and “hackers” against companies that “unfairly restrict customer choice”. Most consumers accept the multi-year contracts that their cellphone providers bind them to, but obviously there is an underground community that seeks to protest against this oppression.

The crux of this issue lies in the legal rights of the individual, and the extent to which a service provider and good retailer can control the consumer’s choice. Apple have restricted consumers to only using AT&T as a service provider, those who protest against this through their hacking no doubt believe this to be an infringement of their liberties. This also raises the interesting issue of principles versus practicality. Users who actually download the hacked software may be doing so for the advantages of using a rival service provider, but the hackers themselves are generally doing do only on a matter of principle.

What needs to be brought to conclusion is the extent of individual liberties. However, there is no clear cut solution to this conundrum, simply because this problem is so new. This issue has arisen only because of the release of this new product, the iPhone, and legislation will need time to catch up. No doubt the legal case that resolves this issue will be highly interesting and set a landmark precedent for future hackers and corporations alike.

Sikh outrage at US airport security


The tragic events of September 11, 2001 shaped the new decade, and will definitely remain unforgotten well into the next. As a global citizen, I can scratch the surface of the impacts of the event, but I can hardly fathom how deeply ingrained it is into the American national psyche.

The profound effect of these events are still widely felt to this day, six years after the event. Coalition troops are embroiled in bloody war in Afghanistan and Iraq, security, especially at airports, is at levels higher than ever seen before 2001, and we read of terrorist events occurring across the globe, from Madrid to London to Glasgow and the streets of Baghdad. However, should we not be doing our best to fight these agents of terror?

Terrorists seek to sow discord and dissension more than cause any lasting physical damage. Bombings will affect your public transport network for a couple of days, it will cost the government money and time, but more importantly it causes fear and terror. Fear gives rise naturally to distrust and animosity, especially towards those perceived as outsiders.

Since 2001, many racial and religious minorities in the United States, especially those that hail from the middle east, or give the appearance of doing so, have faced increased hatred and persecution. Discrimination and racism have always been problems in society, but the event of 2001 have severely exacerbated this.

America has declared a “war on terror”, not a war on terrorists”. She needs to recognise that terror is a construct of the mind in people; the terrorists merely feed it. America need to crack down on policies that allow this terror, fear and animosity to fester and breed. Under the new regulations mentioned in this report, Airport officials have been given free reign in searching sacred religious symbols.

This is blatant and outrageously discrimination against the religious minority of Sikhs in the United States. No authority in the States would ever pass a regulation that permits officials free reign in searching Christian religious symbols; it should be no different for persons of any religion.

Of course, one must understand that the halcyon days prior to September 11 that the United States enjoyed are long past. The turban poses a small security risk for sure. However, as the article said, there was an old policy in place that gave Sikhs a high amount of privacy regarding their turbans. However, America cannot allow the kind of discrimination shown in this regulation to continue. This does not help reduce terrorism, it promotes fear and distrust that that hate of terrorism feeds on.

An injection of Art?

The local creative scene has always been a matter of some debate among those interested in it. This article laments the lack of large concentrations of individuals, in a density to perhaps spark off that long awaited passion for the arts in the pragmatic lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. As the columnist says, we pose as connoisseurs of art, but in truth knowing nothing outside the most well-known or popular cultural icons. In the end, the greatest cause of this "lack of vivacity in the creative fields" is insufficient support from the public.

No doubt there are many like-minded souls yearning for an outpouring of creative juices from local artists. It is truly sad that the most common form of art known to Singaporeans, young and old alike, is last week’s most popular song downloaded off the internet and on their iPods. However, one thing we must always remember that as society we have our morals. One thing that seems to hardly ever surfaces in the minds of those who lament the lack of cultural appreciation in Singapore is that any funds the government provides to the art scene means an equal trade-off in some other part of society. Many of the less well-to-do in Singapore have never heard of the Bard, let alone seen one of his plays. We play a delicate balancing act, with the demands of every nook of society pulling in every direction. Perhaps, the arts scene should make an attempt at promoting itself.

Purists will retort that the stumbling block is the pragmatism that we, as a nation, have been brought up to believe in over the last forty-odd years. Indeed, it is not uncommon to hear someone say “Aiyah, waste money to watch a concert? Can watch TV at home.” Let us look at the example of some older cosmopolitan cities; New York, Paris, and London to name but the biggest. These cities have modern histories dating back at least 400 years, and are arguably the largest cultural centres in the world. Perhaps, having settled into a way of existence, these cities have then taken the time to seek out the smaller joys in life. Singapore too, needs to walk the tightrope of commercial hub and truly global city.

What makes the arts scene is driven almost exclusively by public taste. Right now, many comment and observe as to how crass and simple public taste is. Indeed, most Singaporeans are well pleased with the latest new toys or music that ship in from abroad. Even worse, demand for local creative work is almost nonexistent. (relatively) Few even know what a poetry slam is; let alone where to find one in Singapore. Unfortunately, many are uninformed of the less well-known forms of art that exist. The solution to this is time; a gradual exposure to both popular and classic culture, conventional and avant-garde art, famous artists and upcoming talents. Over time, we can cultivate a society that will hanker after culture beyond what is easily accessible.

Youth attitudes

The “O” level results for 2006 were released in Singapore on 9 February 2007. Naturally, there were varied results amongst the students who took this examination. These four articles exemplify in four individuals an attitude of hard work, diligence, and resilience that have carried them very far. This attitude is no doubt one we should learn from.

The first article reports on Normal (Academic) stream student, Juliana Lim. She was the highest scoring N(A) stream student, and scored five straight A’s. She admitted herself that “I was playful and blasé about schoolwork, until secondary 3, where I became more focused and had a desire to do well.” No doubt this determination is what spurred her on to such exemplary results.

The second article reports on the performance of foreign students in the examination. According to the Education Ministry, nearly half of the top students were foreigners. One example, Zhou Tian Tian, scored nine distinctions, after studying in Singapore for just two years. Over two years, she “went the extra mile” to improve her English, and through this hard work now has a strong mastery of the language. According to the Chinese embassy, the Chinese students here “are used to working very hard” and feel that “if they can master English… they will have a secure future”.

The third article reports on student David Hoe. Unlike most students, he spent six years in secondary school, and achieved a score that has let him stay in junior college. This was made more difficult by making changes to his subjects in the middle of secondary 3. Due to family circumstances, David almost gave up on his studies in primary school, after being moved to the EM3 stream due to poor examination results. However, he had a change of mindset in secondary school, and has since worked diligently to achieve his dream of becoming a teacher.

The last article reports on Oh Boon Keng, who suffers from muscular dystrophy. The condition made him so weak that he even has difficulty writing. However, his resilient spirit is to be admired, scoring A’s for all but one subject, while also a distinguished disabled athlete. He has even opted to take the shorter polytechnic course of study, as he wants to spend as much of his life giving back to community.

The character of these four individuals is definitely to be admired and respected. Their attitude towards difficulty has helped them overcome these huge obstacles. If Singapore’s youth would learn from these individuals, we would soon be a nation of people with a never-say-die attitude when facing problems. Unfortunately, when there are those with such willpower, there are also youth who all too often give up. If we could take on the perspective of these individuals, without a good grasp of the lingua fraca, or faced with family problems, or physically disabled, yet they overcome obstacles, then all of us would truly learn what is difficulty, and the attitude that we should learn.

Gun crime?

The above article recounts a public shooting by an 18-year-old student, in America. For residents of Singapore, the very idea of possession of firearms and killing of innocents would be both frightening and absurd. The article also mentions a separate shooting incident in which a businessman killed three people because "he was angry about losing money in a failed business venture".

This article illustrates two things. Firstly, the almost commonplace occurrence of public violence in America, and secondly the public attitude there towards such events. Contrast this with the average Singaporean attitude towards this, that of shock, and the much lower occurrences of such violent events in Singapore. Obviously, strict gun laws in Singapore, among other legislation, have been very effective in curbing such violence.

The general American attitude that this kind of behaviour, although unacceptable, is inevitable and to be tolerated, is a blinkered one. Many countries (those with strict gun laws) have been extremely successful in curbing extremely violent acts, such as public shootings. The article mentions a shooting because a man was “angry”. I ask you, is anger a reason for shooting someone dead? Every year, thousands of innocents die in shooting rampages across America, yet Americans still hold on to their freedom to bear arms.

Americans maintain that it is their constitutional right to bear arms, and are indeed right. However, what is disturbing is that despite the large number of gun crimes, Americans still have not taken the steps to introduce stricter gun laws, or vote on a constitutional amendment.

This article was written to honour a man for bravery beyond his call, and I concur that Officer Hammond should be commended for his action in trying to protect as many people as possible. However, the article also reflects on a disturbing side of society, America being a prime example of such social degeneration. A teenager taking to killing innocent people, should not and cannot be tolerated, under any circumstances or for any reasons.

The individual in this article, 18-year old Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic, killed five people, for unknown reasons. I would hazard a guess that he was dissatisfied with his life in America, dropped out of school, and was lost and confused. Many gun crimes in America end with the shooter committing suicide.

I hope that Singapore, or any other country for that matter, will never degenerate to such a degree as can be observed in the United States of America. The idea of killing an innocent to relieve anger or stress is revolting and vile to the human consciousness, and should remain so. Rising violence in the youth of this generation is a disturbing trend that should be curbed, else it lead to the state where it is so rampant and widespread that we take it for a societal norm. I leave you with the thought of a nightmare future, a dog eat dog world, without law, where the “fittest survive”.