As the president of the 17th Students’ Union, and now president of the i-gave Class Gift 2009, I feel that I am able to share my perspectives on this issue from first-hand experience.

When we participate in the i-gave class giving program, we are investing in our shared future. This is because the value of our degree is indelibly tied to our alma mater’s standing.

Many of my fellow schoolmates—especially final-year students who face the prospect of entering the corporate world or pursuing further studies—are starting to reckon with this fact: the reputation of where we graduate from matters.  In fact some of the most common questions employers or graduate school deans will ask when we knock on their doors are: where we graduated from, how was our university experience, what is the standing of our alma mater, etc.

When we invest in i-gave, it is the participation that matters—not the amount. When corporate foundations and philanthropists see NTU students and alumni give passionately towards our alma mater, they too, will be drawn to our culture of giving.

While it is true that most students cannot afford to give large sums, every single donation—whatever the amount—makes a difference. When the contributions of the entire student population is pooled together with the giving from alumni, faculty, staff, corporations, foundations, and community philanthropists, the impact is multiplied.

Sometimes, our generation is accused of being the “me” generation. We preface everything we do with a question: what’s in it for me? But I believe that this is a cynical view. If we’ve only looked hard enough we would realise that for good or worse, NTU has been an important juncture of our life, and that NTU has provided a great deal to all of us without the skeptical view of “what’s in it for me”.

All of us have a collective stake in the university.

Choudhury Anshuman Das
President, i-gave Class Giving 2009
Final-year Chemical & Biomedical Engineering student

My suggestion for the online newspaper to continue to attract wider readership, you must continue to make an effort to explore the “non-politically correct” issues and investigate what may lie beneath the seemingly closed-minds of our undergraduates and impenetrable university bureaucracy.

Above all, your analysis must be independent, reasoned and critical, not forgetting of course the usual dosage of self-discipline and restraint. The University is an idealistic place, where students should be encouraged to think independently, and you at the Enquirer should aspire to take on this role.

Keep up the excellent work!

Ho Khai Leong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Nanyang Technological University

I concur with the opinions of those interviewed about the ministerial forum (Everyday concerns not addressed at forum, October 18).

It’s a pity that there are bubbling questions on how “ordinary Singaporeans” are defined.

Although globalisation has been termed either a threat or an opportunity to the middle-class and educated Singaporeans, little has been said of the hardworking but neglected men and women on the street.

Perhaps it was because the discourse was set for an audience of tertiary-educated students who already have the potential to seek out the opportunities of globalisation.

But most “ordinary Singaporeans” may have no hope of tapping into this global network—they are too bogged down by family commitments, rising cost of living, perceived competition from foreign labour and talents, and the like to realise such aspirations.

One reason why the forum was somewhat of a letdown was the way the minister tried to politicise the issues presented.

As rightly pointed out by some members of the audience, there is a strong survivalist streak in his words last night that sums up the situation as do-or-die.

When Shan, a second year political science student, asked Dr Balakrishnan about Singaporeans who were affected by the mini-bond fiasco, the minister in turn asked her whether he should approach the problem as an economist or politician.

Her simple reply—to look at the issue from the eyes of an “ordinary Singaporean”—won the applause of the audience.

No doubt many, if not all, of the issues raised during the forum have some impact on the political governance of Singapore, but Shan pointed out the more direct and critical link: the ones affected are ordinary unpoliticised Singaporeans.

Seah Ru Han
Third-year Political Science undergraduate
National University of Singapore

Correction: October 14th, 2008

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

The note at the end of the letter misidentified the position held by the author. Mr Lim Chee Harn is an executive producer at the Spectrum TV, not the Nanyang Spectrum. We are sorry for the error.

While the protesters involved in the “Big Hong Lim Show” have tried to voice out their opinions, I feel obliged as well to provide another perspective to this whole issue.

As part of the team involved in the production of Nanyang Spectrum, I’m in a position to understand the pain involved when our work was censored. But why are the onlookers, people who are outside the production of these articles and news clips, making more noise than us?

The ones who are most affected are those who spent their nights editing the articles and news clips with the hope of getting it published or shown. I certainly do not think that we need the onlookers to show our dismay to the world. Are these protesters trying to represent us, or making use of the opportunity to represent themselves?

There is certainly no point in shouting if they had wanted to voice their opinions. There are certainly smarter ways in making their point. For one, a website like this will have its true voices heard even without making any sound.

The reason I say this is because many people are still ignorant of what really happened, even after the “Big Hong Lim Show”.

It’s really a painful and tiring job to repeatedly explain the situation to others because of the commotion created by these protesters. A rally like that has little long-term effects. Are these protesters going down again this Sunday?

To me, the “Big Hong Lim Show” is but only a show.

Lim Chee Harn
Executive Producer
Spectrum TV

I’ve always felt that university students should be given the opportunities to engage in intellectual banter and be free to come up with their own opinions over the issues that exist in our society. Yet, I’m usually disppointed that many facts are often hidden from plain sight for fear that ‘we may not be able to handle the truth’.

I truly believe that for society to mature, they must be given all the facts and opinions so as to allow them to come to their own judgment. We cannot become mature through ignorance.

I wanted to say how proud I am that people from my university are actually stepping up to the plate.