, , 7/31 , , 7.5 (L8.5, R7.5, W6, S7), , , , . , , , .

, , . ----------------------------------------- Young people are spending too much time on watching TV. What kinds of activities should be encouraged to them? It has been widely reported that children are having more time on electronic media such as television and computer. Whether or not it introduce children any benefits has been a debate among parents and teaching professionals. I am well convinced that it does more harm than benefit to the kids. Parenting academics has long believed that there are three major aspects of children rearing, i.e. physical, emotional and intellectual. While TV or computer media does provide some educational materials such as wildlife or alphabetic learning to the kids, such quality programs are undoubtedly inadequate along various life stages of the children from infancy to adolescence, which might require more and more organized and structured learning through reading, writing, calculating or even social interactions with others, not to mention that those programs with violence and porn only introduce risky behaviors to them. The deficiency of interactions with friends and family members bring children flawed mental development. For instance, children may become easily irritated when dealing with disputes with their peers since they have not possessed such a skill to do so. Children may become self-centered and show less empathy and compassion to the younger or the older. Last but not the least, kids are deprived of the time for outdoor activities such as running or exploring the nature in the real world. Research has shown that it has become one of the major causes explaining children obesity, which results in physical challenges such as diabetes and heart failures. To sum up, TV or computer contents, when properly filtered by the parents or guardians, are merely a fraction of children-rearing. Parent must be attentive to the balanced growth of all aspects. Kids must be brought up by the parents not the TV. Kids must live in a real world not a virtual one. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------? Children should learn their second language as early as possible. There is a tendency nowadays that children start their learning of second language at very early age. Some people may pour scorn on this practice. I am well convinced that it does more benefit than harm to our kids. Firstly, it sets up a stage for the kids to develop advanced level of proficiency in the second language. There is abundant research showing that kids learning second language before onset of adolescence can develop near native-like pronunciation and intonation, which translate to an enhanced skill set for social interactions. With the added language, Kids obviously learn better to love, respect, appreciate, show empathy and compassion to, or even confidently resolve disputes with people from different cultures and ethnic groups. Some people are concerned about the challenge with time management and claim that learning the second language may deprive the time for other mission-critical subjects such as mathematics. However, research evidence gives the opposite results. Biologically, bilingual training can stimulate the interactions of brain cells, which contributes to successful development of cognitive problem solving ability a measurement of creativity

and flexibility. It further shows in the research finding that kids capable of second language outperform in the standardized test of mathematics. To conclude, learning second language helps development of not only communication skill, mental health but also the intellectual aspect of the kids. Through the early training on the second language, our kids become skilled communicators as well as intelligent thinkers, which we all hope for. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------? A childs success is dependent on the way parents bring them up, agree or disagree?...Some people think it would be a good idea to teach every young person how to be a good parent. Describe the skills a person needs to be a good parent. Any sensible person will not count on the children to grow on their own and hope that one day they stand up and become successful. I am of no exception to this notion. However, what a parent can do to make it be a successful parenting remains an issue for debate among parents and teaching professionals. Question is firstly how we measure the success. It has been long believed that a successful parenting consists of balanced development of childrens physical, emotional and intellectual properties. Parent is subjected to provide shelters, food and clothes, care for the childrens health, and promote the healthy growth. Parent is desired to provide safe loving environment, encourage them, and enhance the mental bonding with the kids despite the natural biological one. Parent should be attentive to intellectual teachings (on- and off-school) such as reading, writing, ethical or social value etc. Moreover, the style and the level of involvement for a successful parenting along different life stages of the children from infancy through adolescence are varied upon factors like socio-economic status, ethnic groups, and the personality of the parents. Traditional Asian culture encourage authoritarian style and full engagement in which kids are organized by the parents all activities and live under stringent set of disciplines. While in the opposite extreme of spectrum, some might adopt the approach of slow parenting without demanding any rule and boundary, in which the kids do what that want at whatever pace. The desired combinations, in my view, must fall somewhere in between and be gauged upon the actual conditions of the kids such as level of maturity. We must demand and be responsive to the kids. To sum up, parents play an important role in a successful childrenrearing, of which the style and level of involvement require careful thinking. Young parents need to be educated. The notion of inheriting it from the grandparents is outdated and treading the water on ourselves is also proved risky and irresponsible for our kids. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------? Some countries encourage teenagers to take up part-time jobs. What is the situation in your country? What are the advantages and disadvantages of teenagers taking up part-time jobs? It has become a common phenomenon nowadays that more teenagers take up part-time jobs to fund the living of the families and their own education. However, its advantages and disadvantages worth a further study. And the situation in China needs to be examined in this text. Firstly, part-time jobs do provide a viable source for money, in particular, for those families living on poverty. A sense of responsibility to the family is thus built up in the mindset of children. In Chinese cities, a service job like waiter in a restaurant or a technician job like an assistant at the Internet cafe might be found for the kids. While in the rural areas, children, unfortunately has

become labor forces being capitalized by the parents. It has been widely reported that Children work in factories under the minimum wages, and parents disrupt the education of their kids temporarily or even permanently for decent full-time jobs. Proponents to part-time jobs further claim that it provides teenagers the chance to enrich their social and practical skills. Being an assistant in the Internet cafe, a kid learns how to deal with a wide range of demographics, the younger and older, man and woman, as well as technical issues such as networking and system setup. The opponents, however, argue that kids may be exposed to potential risks such as violence, porn and gangsters within the part-time jobs. Teenagers tend to emulate their peers, and to follow those behaviors while parents and teachers are unaware of. Furthermore, our society, particular in China, judges the success of the children by their academic excellence rather than social ability. With the parttime jobs, children may find less time to carry out regular and extra-curricular duties. To sum up, I have a neutral view on part-time jobs. Parents should firstly set up a safety boundary for Children to explore and take up part-time jobs within it. In this regard, a job within the school or the community where we live might be a preferred choice for the teenagers. -----------------------------------------------------------------------? Some people believe that practical skills such as maintaining of a car, or managing a bank account should be taught at school as well as traditional academic subjects. Discuss. In recent years people start to look at the possibility of teaching practical skills at school. It is still very much a debate. The proponents and opponents both have merits in their arguments. Firstly lets look at what practical skills are. Here is a short list: managing credit card, budgeting the spending, knowing how to get around, handling a medical emergency, making money out of a part-time job, reporting and getting away from a crime etc. It has been widely reported that many college students are over-stretched by the mounting debts they fail to pay their overdue credit card bills. Managing the financial account, carefully budgeting the inflow and outflow of the cash have been a constant challenge for those students. I also heard a story on the news that in a forest hiking a kid reported to the rescue team their location by reading the GPS map while his father became unconscious with severe acute asthma. However, he still lost him due to the failed CPR on his father by the emergency staff. What if the kid has been taught by performing a timely and successful CPR? Will that save his dad back? For years we have presumed that kids learn these skills randomly from their parents or on themselves. This model of knowledge transfer is flawed since we cannot expect the parents possess the skills all at required level and most updated. It is reasonably believed that a structured learning scheme at school is much more ideal. People would argue if such a scheme, despite its value, will deprive the time for regular academic courses. It certainly will. However, if we manage them right, the negative impact on academics will be minimized. Moreover, our society should not judge the success simply by the academic excellence but also by the proficiency of surviving skills as discussed above. ----------------------------------------------------------? Many schools demand students to wear uniform. Some people think that such a practice undermine their personality and individuality. What do you think? Each year when new school year is coming, students, parents and teaching professionals would argue whether or not students should wear school uniform. I personally have a

neutral view on this matter. Firstly the uniform blurs the differences of the students from differing backgrounds. It helps eliminate the complex from the poor and over-confidence from the rich. Secondly, it helps stop the gangsters break into the school since the dress would distinguish them from the uniformed students. The school thus becomes safer. Thirdly the students and parents have less worry about the current fashion of clothing; costs and efforts for being fashionable are also waived. Lastly it establishes a bonding between the school and the students, who tend to show pride by wearing it and be willing to take responsibility for their actions. However, the opponents have merits in their argument. By wearing the same uniform, students look identical in the appearance. The restrictive nature of the uniform limits the student to freely express themselves. It thus discourages the creativity and flexibility, in particular, for those gifted students with unique capacities such as music, drawing and engineering. It is further found that most uniforms are of poor quality off the master production. Students dress up uncomfortably and look awkward in the freezing winter when pullovers are needed to put on outside of the uniform. To overcome the bad sides of the uniform, school authorities may invite the students into the design process. A competition could be devised each year for the school uniform. Different ideas are heard and appraised. Students wear their own uniform not something we simply hand to them. ------------------------------------------? Some people believe that children should be allowed to stay at home and play until they are six or seven years old. Others believe that it is important for young children to go to school as soon as possible. There are three available options for children rearing, i.e. stay-at-home parenting, daycare center with play-based but limited structured learning, and formal schooling with structured learning programs. However, at what age and to choose which option is a matter of debate among parents and teaching professionals. Stay-at-home parenting enhances the bonding between children and parents. Through caressing, hugging and touch, children are loved and encouraged by the parents. In the loving environment, Children tend to develop healthy emotional property to love others and to show empathy and compassion to the younger, the older and the sicker. The intellectual teaching, however, is casually practiced at home. It is quite often either inadequate or over-stretching for the kids since contents and goals are not scientifically delivered and measured, in particular for those less skilled parents or parents with time constraint. The daycare center, however, provides a facility with functions of playing and learning. A good daycare program is carefully devised to give children different experiences beyond parental care, especially when the children reach two and become mature enough to interact with others, learn language and other skills. A 2001 research report shows that kids in high-quality daycare score higher on the tests of language and memory than did children of stay-at-home mothers. In the current education system, children are sent to formal school at the turn of age 6 or 7, in which contents and goals, delivery and timing are all well defined. So how could we determine the timing of the transition from home to formal school? I support the idea of natural transition. We measure the readiness of the children. There is no definite answer to the right time for a move. It may be still premature to send the kid to the daycare even at age 3 if physically or emotionally he/she is not ready for it. ? In this age of change, traditional and custom foods are changed rapidly, and the way of people

eating is also changed. What is the reason in your country? There are a number of driving forces behind the changes of food and eating habit. Firstly more variety of food is available to us than ever before. Thanks to the global trade, we have fruits and foods we never heard before such as Kiwifruit from New Zealand, olive oil from Italy and Spain, mango from Australia and Thailand, broccoli from Italy and sea crab from Japan, just to name a few. Moreover, the technology for storage, transport and distribution, so-called unbroken cold chain, makes this global trade possible by bringing frozen seafood and fresh agricultural produce from far remote continents to China. People nowadays become more conscious with healthy food and cooking techniques. People are now convinced that high fat and calories lead to physical challenges such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular failure, hypertension etc., and healthy diet may consists of those with high protein, vitamin and minerals. The cooking technique is evolving too with more options like steaming rather than frying to retain the nutrients but cut fat and calories. People live in fast-paced life. In the city like Shanghai, people spend 1-2 hours one way to get to work. Fast or ready-to-eat factory cooked foods become popular. This is indeed a negative development. In this scenario people care more about feeding them up rather the nutrition of the intake or the sanitation of the process. We heard on the news that the cooking oil was tainted in the factory and become poisonous. To sum up, in the rapid changing society, the authority should not simply teach people the knowledge of healthy foods and processes but also provide the fast-paced workforce a safe route to get the right food. --------------------------------------------------------------? More and more children are putting on more weight than ever before. What are the causes of this and any suggestions? More and more obese children have been found in recent years. In this text, the causes and suggestions to this issue are discussed. Firstly it has something to do with the diet. Children nowadays take in more fat and calories, which are commonly found in fast foods like KFC and McDonalds. Children live in the city high-rising apartments, sit and watch TV, surf the Internet or play the computer games for hours. All these deprive the time and space for extra-curricular physical exercises. Lastly but not the least, besides the genetic factor, parents of obese children are found the similar living habits as above. Children simply emulate them. Suggestions go to diet and energy management. A healthy diet consists of high-protein, low fat and calorie foods such as vegetables and seafood. We may need to watch and track carefully the intake as well as consumption of the energy. Regular physical exercises are planned and executed. Parents should be educated first the healthy living style and follow it consistently. Parents help children set up a goal and reward system for the weight loss. Red meat is not a reward in this regard. Research found that the obesity beginning in early childhood will likely persist through the life span. As parents, we should be attentive to this matter now not later. The physical and psychological impairment due to the obesity will be constantly deteriorated if we choose to neglect an action plan. ----------------------------------------------------------------? Many people do longer work hour and have more stressful to them, what do you think and how employers to do? Nowadays many people do face the competitive job market and pressing living cost. They work longer and even to death in a number of cases reported. Employers and our society have chosen to neglect what is

happening around us. In this text I would explain the roles of employees, employers and our society in general and see if we can make a change to them. Firstly, being employee, you need to balance the goals of career development and family care. You are not a working machine running nonstop at a maximum speed. You are also a father, son and husband. The satisfactions come from your job achievement but most importantly from the family. Secondly you need gauge the capacity which you are able to deliver, and the goals preset by your boss. You might need a training to achieve it. You might need to reposition yourself to a new job which fits your capacity and interest. You might consult your co-workers or even your boss before you take up the load. Lets look at the employer. Firstly we must be aware that a stressful workforce will not be sustainable. There are short- and long-sighted views on this. Any sensible employer would expect its business to run eternally and be profitable. The challenge for the employer is to balance the goal-setting of the business with the capacity of your workface in short- and long-term, simply the capacity planning of your intangible asset, the employees. There are other measures an employer could do. You could train your staff or encourage teamwork to upgrade the capacity. You could invite families of the staff into the company events or annual vocation tours to lift up the morale of the crew. Lastly you could always use psychological consultations for stressful employees and give them professional help. Government is not someone standby watching. The labor law may be enforced to protect the rights of employees such as fair pay and maximum work time. The public fund should be sufficient to cover the medical care, housing subsidies, and transportations, so-called necessities for the whole society. We need tax smartly to ease the extraordinary disparity between the rich and the poor. To conclude, the stress of our workforce is not simply employees problem. For a sustainable society, employer and government should take up their roles responsibly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------? Why some professionals, as doctor, lawyer, engineer paid higher than other works? Are there any other jobs you think should be paid higher? People have long argued that doctor, lawyer and banker are paid by incredible high compensations. I personally have a neutral view on this matter although something the government should do to fix loopholes in the system. Firstly, I am a believer of free market doctrine, in which supply and demand determine the price of a service or a product. Take doctor as an example. It is reported that the specialists such as cardiologist and neurologist in the US are paid in average exceeding $400,000 per annum while the general practitioners (or the GPs) take home $170,000. Naturally more and more medical students strive for the specialists for the money sake. GPs become short in the community clinics. GPs will be paid higher; more people move to GPs. However, there is a hidden hand on this free market. It is the government, which set up unfair rules favoring a certain sector such as Wall Street banks and telecom monoploies in China. Bankers have become a public enemy in this global recession. They set up rules to maximize their profits by sacrificing the general public. Barrack Obama tries to fix it, the loopholes in the current system. I am truly convinced that there are more new loopholes than what we could fix. Government needs a long-term perspective. While we honor the discipline of supply-and-demand, government may tax and spend smartly to

promote fair pay in our society and mediate the disparity between the rich and the poor. So who should be paid higher? Lets have the market say. Will you take up a job by paying $1 million to work on the oil exploration platform like the one in Gulf of Mexico? I wont. But some people will do by risking their life for highly paid job like this. ? Nowadays some people prefer to rebuild or redesign the old house, they want to modernize them. Tell the advantage or disadvantage by your opinion. People move into an old house or a house they live for 20 years. It is very natural for them to rebuild or redesign to meet their new needs for either safety reason or spiritual satisfaction. Firstly an old house might not suitable for modern living. In some parts of China, old houses might be structurally damaged or are poorly equipped in kitchen, bathrooms, air conditioning, fire alarming, clean water supply, electronic wiring, cable TV and computer networking. The functions of a house such as safe sheltering, basic living and recreation are compromised if it remains not rebuilt or redesigned. However, there are more occasions that the owners of the houses want to change simply because the old houses have lost the appeal to them. For instance, I am always eager to enlarge my reading room to play the Wii game, which unfortunately my wife has not approved the budget for it. So it comes to the negative part of this matter. It costs money like in my case. People tend to spend too much and do excessive work on their house. There are wastes of materials and efforts. Sometimes it becomes a risky mission. It is widely reported lately in the US that the tainted Chinese drywall causes homeowners respiratory tract infections. To sum up, rebuilding or redesigning is a decision of homeowners. But the homeowners need to be attentive to the environmental implications to the decision. It will harm others and yourself if you do not do it wisely. ----------------------------------------------------------? New media has become influential to our life nowadays. Some people think that it is a negative development. To what extent do you agree or disagree? New media such as web portal, email, BBS, SMS, blogging, instant messenging and social networking is changing our life rapidly. I cannot think that it is a negative development despite some misuses on them. Firstly new media is dynamic and interactive compared with the traditional one. Web news is updated in an interval of seconds while 24 hours for the daily newspaper. The interactive nature of new media creates a democratization culture in the virtual world, in which people create, publish, distribute and consume the media contents. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is a classical example of this culture. This virtual world has no boundary. It makes global communication possible. It has an impact on journalism, which used to be on the hand of professional journalists. Now citizen journalism becomes popular, in which an ordinary citizen may shoot an incident by his or her cellphone and upload to YouTube to broadcast to the world audience. The traditional authoritarian news control is thus overcome. The negative side of news media has been discussed in the public for a long time. With such a freedom above, who are supposed to ensure the quality of the contents, who should be the recipients of the materials, how should we use them? Adolescents are receiving the adult-related contents in the Internet cafe. Hackers invade into the banking system and cause the devastating loss of the public. We used to walk and now have a new car. We have more freedom and access a far distance at a faster speed. We need to steer it right to avoid an accident. No one is willing to abandon this car for potential accident. This is the story happening to new

media. ----------------------------------------------------------------? Almost everybody knows the importance of the environment problem, but people seldom do environment protective jobs individually, why? How to encourage people to take action to protect the environment? In recent years we have been bombarded by the public media that the environment issue is the most pressing one in our society. However, very few people including me take any action on it. In this text, some suggestions to this matter are given. Firstly the goals seem to be too remote for individuals to act. We have heard a lot about reduction targets for carbon dioxide emission, the melting glaciers, extreme weather such as hurricane, drought and flood, and endangered species. What could we do about it? Can we quantify the results if we change our habits? How about the others? In a socialized world psychologically we all look to peers for actions. We need educate the public the desired social value. People should be pride of how best they could do save our planet. People drive 5-litres Lincoln Navigator should feel shameful not powerful. We are taught to track our carbon footprints. We get up in the morning, have a shower, drive to work, photocopy the documents, meet and call people, order delivery, drive home. We itemize the actions and quantify their consequences. Government may help promote this by providing a better infrastructure. People give up private cars when the city has a well established public transport. The owner of the factory would be encouraged to install new technologies to cut CO2 emission when the government subsidizes the expenditures by tax rebates.