If you or your loved ones are stricken with an illness and your only hope of being cured is therapeutic cloning, will you go for it? Why?

Yes, I would. But only in saving lives, and not playing God.

Being a Catholic, I believe in the power of God. I believe that He holds the power to control our lives, the power to decide our fates and the power to change all that we know. If God decided that your time on Earth was up, then there would be no stopping him from taking you away from this planet. God has always a chosen, decided path for you. He put you here for a reason, as is with everyone else. Whether you chose to take this path is your own decision, for He cannot make your mind up for you. He can only convince you, influence you and lead you down this chosen route. But ultimately, you must choose to walk it. Therapeutic cloning is much like this route. The Church is against it because they see stem cell cloning as a violation of life. They see it as something that taints the values of life. But if you choose not to walk this route and align yourself with the Church's views, then it is completely up to you.

Being a neo-Catholic, I somewhat believe that the main purpose of stem cell research is to save lives, to perserve life and not to allow man to play God. This main purpose, while laudable, is not the only purpose it serves. Many hopes that with cloning, they can bring their dead back to life. This is the exact reason why cloning should be stopped. Man is not God, and they are never meant to play God. If Man can control himself, restrict the use of cloning to help those alive, then cloning should not be a problem. But, as with all knowledge, curiosity kills the cat. Once Man decides that they should start talking fate into their own hands, then all hell will break loose.

The prospect of saving lives is indeed a great one. It is a noble thought, a positive decision. I support the use of stem cell to save lives. I know the pain of losing a loved one to a disease is overwhelming. Although I have no personal experience and have no right in claiming to, I choose to trust in the timing of the situation. I choose to believe that a cure for Alzeihmer's Disease and Parkinson's Disease are possible, that time is needed to achieve it. Imagine, with this cure, Parkinson's Disease will never haunt humanity again. How many can be saved this way? How many can be allowed a second chance at the life that they nearly lost? The numbers are limitless.

As I have said, the choice is ultimately yours. To go or not to go is entirely up to you. To choose or not to choose is also exclusively your decision. But what I have here is merely my own, what I believe. I choose to use stem cell cloning to save lives. I go with the decision to ban cloning for bringing back the dead.

What about you?

What is your decision?

Would you buy products that contain GM foods for consumption by your family? Why or why not?

Yes, I would.

GM foods are not as unsafe as they seem. Many items that we eat nowadays are GM, the inexhaustible list including daily-favourites like Lays potato chips and Kellog's Corn Flakes. These items are safe, and there is no reason to ostracize them. Regarding the other GM foodstuff, like vegetables and fruits, it may be advisable to trust them to the government to test them out and guaranteeing their safety before consuming them. With such precautions in place, there is no reason that the GM food that we have on the supermarket shelves now are dangerous or harzardous to our personal wellbeing.

As one of the country's decision makers, would you advocate the use of GM crops? Why or why not?

Yes, I will.

For a country so ravaged by famine and hunger, GM crops will prove to be very useful in alleviating the situation. For a country to experience such severe levels of famine, the groundsoil has most probably have been eroded so badly that it will take decades to return to normalcy. Without this layer of groundsoil to provide the crops with nutrition, growing healthy plants will be an onerous task. With GM crops, the chances of growing healthy crops will be greater. The people will then have the chance of securing a reliable, steady source of food to cure their hunger and stop the spread of famine. Moreover, GM crops can help to "heal" the soil, allowing it to support other forms of herbalogical life. This way, there would be little in the way of farming. Another benefit that GM crops have is that they contain a myriad compendium of vitamins and/or anti-bodies that will help with the malnutrition that always come hand in hand with famine. Also, GM crop might be a cost-effective and time-saving alternative to innocunate the population against dangerous diseases compared to vaccinating the people via the traditional method of injections.

What are your views on abortion?

For me, the line is clear. I am against abortion. There might be black, white and the grey patch sandwiched in between. But being a Roman Catholic, the line is clear and simple. There are many reasons for why abortion is advised against, be it religious, socially or otherwise. Mine are just scratching the surface, the tip of the iceberg with many more to come.

I am a neo-traditionalist. I believe in human rights, in freedom, in liberty and in individualism. Yet, I also trust in the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Mother Mary, the Holy Bible, all the saints and the Holy Catholic Church. These beliefs, when fused together, form a revolutionary new point of view. I see abortion as taking away part of God's creation. Yet, if it is done for a truly valid reason, then it must be done. It's not a matter of inevitability, it's a matter of decision. The choice lies with the individual.

A life is a creation of God. Abortion is taking away this life, this new creation of God. Morally, it is considered murder, infantcide. Who are you to decide if this life is to stop? Who are you to judge if this life is to end? There is no quote in the Bible which states such blatant disregard to life. There is no sign in the Bible that tells of the mother choosing whether the life in her womb is to live on or to die. This life doesn't belong to the mother; it belongs to God. If God should see that this life is to end, then it shall end. If He sees that this life is to continue, then it shall continue. There is no position for the mother to decide on the fate of this life. But by the liberalised mindset of modern society, individual rights states dictates that this life is in the hands of the mother. The mother would have the power to decide on the future of this life. But, mind you, if it wasn't by God's will, would the pregnancy come about? It would not materialise at all should it not be part of God's plan. God made this life for a purpose, like all others. But what is it for? Is it fair for the life to end before it can achieve what it was set out to do?

The question still rings, "Who has power over this life?"

That, is the one question, with many answers.

Abortion should only be considered in extreme cases. Poverty may be, troubled times could be, but have you wondered, did God put this for a reason?

Yet, there are many valid reasons for abortions. Pregnation due to rape is a valid reason for abortion. This life would only serve as a reminder of the ordeal, of the torment. If the life is to be shown no love, then should it be bore? Should it be born to suffer?

No matter what the choices are, I know that one thing is for sure: the choice lies in the hand of the mother, the bearer of this life, of God's creation.

“Far too much attention is given to beauty products and treatments.” Do you agree? (2004)

Beauty products and treatments are becoming an integral part of our lives; with the ubiquitous quaint breast enhancement and slimming advertisements around us, compounded with the constant tandem appearances of celebrities endorsing cosmetics on television, beauty has impacted society's mindsets immensely. Indeed, it is becoming conspicuous that beauty products and treatments are enjoying far too much attention. It is such to an extent that their advertisements are aired unbridledly, influencing many a young minds towards spending opulently to achieve what was advertised, be it flawless skin, perfect body figure or wrinkle-free cheeks.

One reason that beauty products and treatments are enjoying "celebrity status" is because of advertisement power. There have always been a seed of jealousy ensconced inside society; a jealousy for other's beauty. What the advertisements merely effected was to catalyse the growth of this seed, and with it, the desire to be the most beautiful. The increased attention paid to these beauty products and treatments are only a result of the growth of this seed, of the want to beautify oneself. Needless to say, the improvement of the encumbered economy is providing affluence to society, fuelling the costs inflicted from seeking the state of "perfect beauty". With their visceral desire of beauty, they capitulate easily to the slow calling of beauty advertisements. Their desire coalesced with the emergence of these advertisements, each fuelling the other's existence. It is with this growth that attention to beauty products and treatments have flourished, and it is only with the end of this symbiosis will the trend stop.

“There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Comment.

This is what our Foreign Ministry, the Internal Security Branch and our government have always been advocating.

I've been to the ISB, and I have seen somethings that will embarass the bilateral ties between us and the world nations.

There have been traces of espionage against our small island nation, and we have reciprocated in kind. Even one of the Commonwealth nations, one whom we expect to trust us, have spied on us. They left a bugging device in our Embassy. The worst part is, they left it during the construction period. Do we really need that sort of treatment?

It has always been true that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interest in the world of foreign policies.

You may never know what your "ally" may be planning behind your back. One moment, he may be supporting you. The next, he turns into one of the worst backstabbers in the history of man.

Permanent interests depict a less emotionally estrangled situation. Less an unfriendly one, it is to save our own skins and hides. We go in whichever way that gives us the most benefits. Nothing more.

Still, one needs friends to support you in the worst kind of political entrapment. An obvious example is the US's war with Iraq. Only the UK supported it, as a friend and ally. Should no one support it, Bush may have second thoughts about the mission.

In conclusion, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interest.

What say you?

Should the education system allow exceptionally bright students to skip grades?

For starters, I agree with Thomas Anthony. I believe that a gifted child is talented at a particular field of study and may not perform well in the conventional educational system.

Einstein was not a "smart" student. He was slow in school, dropped out in high school and ended up being a World-renowned Physicist. He may have died, but his theories live on. If we want to, or even hope to nurture someone like Einstein, we must develop unconventional ways of discovering which field of study is the gifted, exceptionally bright child talented in. This way, he/she gets less stress, more productive and a head start from the other students. It saves time, and it is straight to the point. It is useless to teach an "Einstein" of music, mathematics. It would not resonate with his thoughts, it would not benefit him and it would only lower his morale with the low grades in Mathematics.

It is a good choice to allow these gifted students to skip grades. When this happens, they can probably develop their talent further. They will have a choice to do what they want with their time. Or even better, have a school to develop their talents. Only their talents, language abilities and simple logic. Conserve time, saves resources.

Think about it. To develop a talent is to take a bold step forward. Want a knowledge-based economy fast? Striving for a "City of the Arts" the express way? This may just be the solution. The solution that we have been searching all this while, right in our face.

Should marriage be a legal contract between individuals or a non-binding relationship based on love? Why?

First and foremost, no. I feel that taking marriage as a legal contract or a non-binding relationship is degrading love. Love is a feeling, a human emotion that is indescribable. If you attempt to mutate it into a material object, it would lose it's special meaning. At that moment, love would be no better than a bar of Snickers that you can get off a shelf in Cold Storage (if you want to glamorize it, love can be related to a new Ferrari convertible). The gist of it is, love can be bought. When it can be bought, it won't be special as just about every average Ah Beng can buy it. When love is like that, is it still what it was?
Next, marriage is not just a legal contract or a non-binding relationship based on love. Marriage is a union of 2 people (religiously, a male and a female). It is about being faithful towards your partner and not just getting married and forgetting about it. With this alone, marriage is not, and should never be, a non-binding relationship. When you get married, you want to live your life with your partner. Not just a part-time life, but a full-time life. Everything. If you seek a non-binding relationship, you should not get married. For you, if you are the above-described, then marriage is nothing more than a veneer, a front, for your relationship. Beneath the surface is the continued flirting at clubs, drinking until late and wondering if your "better half" is dead or in Timbuktu because you haven't seen her/him in yonks. If this is what modern society perceives marriage to be, then civilisation, or what we imagine to be, would be in such dire straits that it would crumble and crack beneath our moral feets.
Lastly, marriage should not be a legal contract to bind 2 people together "in the name of love". Marriage is originally a religious procession. It was not until the "civilised white men from the Far West" decided to merge this concept with that of the law did marriage morphed into a legal procession. The legal contract is to make divorcing an easier, less tedious process. For a religious procession, divorce should not even exist. It is because society has developed into an open, expressive and individualistic one that divorce should exist. Legal contracts remind one of corporate-based agreements, insurance policies and things that people think others will run away with if a record is not made. Must love be turned into such materialistic possession? Do they think their partner will run away? If it is so, then one of the prerequisites of love; trust, has already been violated.
"Would you like to pay for your marriage by Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, cheque or cash?"

My views on advertisements

                                    I feel that advertisements are a integral part of attracting a company's pool of customers. Should they not advertise, the public would not even know if the company exists, let alone any knowledge about their products. Hence, it is understandable about the presence of advertisements. But, what I do not condone about advertisements are the irritating pop-ups that occur each time you open a new webpage while you're surfing the internet. This kind of advertisement, along with the kind of "mass advertising" that comes with every e-mail account, is what makes advertisement so irritating.
                                    Firstly, advertisement is the "knock on the door" for potential customers which wake them up to a new product that they  may be interested in. It is a psychological attack, aimed at making the consumer much aware about their products and not about their competitors', hence achieving the effect of bing "the only available product of that kind" in the consumers' minds. This is an acceptable behavior, as it is to maximise profits for the firms and companies peddling their goods. but, when they overdo it and irritate the customers, the whole point of advertising will be nullified. Why? This is because of the simple fact that the consumer is irritated of the advertisement, and do not even want to see it. hence, like the mailbox junk that we get, we will just dump it aside without even giving it second thoughts.
                                  Secondly, such mass advertising will only give the consumer more headache than a mood for shopping. The authorities should effect legislatures to curb the actions of such advertisements. As what Bill Gates have suggested at the annual E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) in Los Angeles USA, we can have a system which makes the sender pay for a mail if it is not "approved" by the recipient. This, I feel, is the most efficient way of curbing mass advertisement, especially those depraved advertisements that find their way into our e-mail boxes. It will add financial burdens to the originator of such mass advertisements, which is the most effective way of deterring them from acting.
                                  Lastly, I feel that advertisements should be controlled. If you notice, those Coca-Cola advertisements are ubiquitous. Why? It is because they have the money to do so! And also they advertise in "legal" places which do not affect the environment's appearance. If the legislature would propose and pass a Bill which states that advertisements are only to be placed at certain spots, it would be a first-step to curbing advertisements. Any other spots than those designated for advertising, a fine will be imposed onto the advertiser. It may not be much, but it could be a good start to the "invasion of the advertisements".
                                 Advertisements: you don't like them, but just can't live without them.