# data[].attributes.headline
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

1. Social media exposes children to harmful content.

Violence, inappropriate language and dangerous challenges.

Counterargument

Parents should supervise children on the proper use of social media platforms instead.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is caught with child abuse,assult and harrasment. He can face punishments such as caning, jail and fines.

This punishments are made to maintain law and order together with peace among society so that no child would not have to face such assault. It is a warning to everyone that if a person were to kick, punch, scratch or torture a child, they will face a very harsh punishments such as years of jail time, strokes of caning, and a large amount of fines.

I agree with this punishments that the government has made as it meant to protect the children or anyone living here in singapore. This punishments will teach the offenders that a child meaning that they are playful and quite hard to control. It also serves as a warning to others that they will face serious consequences and punishments if they chose to do this crime

In addition. If the offender is given strokes of caning, it will leave a permenant scar on their body showing the sign of the crime that he committed. And if he/she was given a long jail time, they will be isolated in a room with no way of communication with other prisinors. Moreover, they will be under survalence all the time watching their every move.

# data[].attributes.body
Teacher's sample comment:

After reading this news article, I felt shocked and saddened. It reported that a domestic helper was sentenced to 18 months' jail for repeatedly abusing her 97-year-old employer, who suffered from dementia and was unable to defend himself. The abuse included hitting and poking the elderly man, and it was only discovered after his grandson installed a hidden camera.

I find it upsetting that such a crime happened in Singapore. However, I understand that many families rely on domestic helpers because both adults often work long hours, while caring for elderly people with dementia can be stressful and demanding. Even so, these difficulties should never be used to justify violence.

In my opinion, the punishment is slightly inadequate because the victim was extremely vulnerable and the abuse happened repeatedly. Besides imprisonment, I believe the offender should be permanently banned from working as a caregiver or domestic helper in Singapore. Such measures would better protect elderly people and remind everyone that those who abuse the vulnerable must face serious consequences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post Monitoring (Column 2) *Do not edit this post.

# data[].attributes.subject
Post Monitoring (Column 2) *Do not edit this post.

# data[].attributes.body
Submissions by:

1) Fauzan

2) Ikraam

3) Irfan Dani

4) Dania Adlina

5) Ashley

6) Zihe

7) Joven

8) Jamien

9) Regis

10) Siti

11) Ziqian

12) Hong Yi

13) Kendric

14) Malishwer

15) Aaron

Not submitted:

1) Tanusha (submitted)

2) Masturina

3) Rain

4) Zhixin (submitted)

5) Nikhilesh

6) Umairah (submitted)

7) Ayra (submitted)

8) Alyssa

9) Samitha

# data[].attributes.body
For your assignment that you have retyped in your MS Teams, copy and paste thetext, and post it here as well.

*Please leave your post-boxes white.

I will be colour-coding them upon reading.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post Monitoring (Column 1) *Do not edit this post.

# data[].attributes.subject
Post Monitoring (Column 1) *Do not edit this post.

# data[].attributes.body
Submissions by:

1) Samitha

2) Kendric

3) Siti

4) Fauzan

5) Ikraam

6) Ayra

7) Irfan Dani

8) Dania Adlina

9) Ashley

10) Joven

11) Jamien

12) Regis

13) Ziqian

14) Hong Yi

15) Malishwer

16) Aaron

17) Alyssa

Not submitted:

1) Tanusha (submitted)

2) Masturina

3) Rain

4) Zihe (submitted)

5) Zhixin (submitted)

6) Nikhilesh

7) Umairah (submitted)

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that if a person caught for driving offences will be given demerit points for various small offences, and if it exceeds a certain number, the driver licence will be taken away is a good punishment for drivers who break the traffic laws.I feel that if they don’t have any punishments and such drivers will be careless.Moreover day by day there will be more accidents,injuries and even deaths.

Firstly, having punishments prevents dangerous drivers from using the roads.Drivers who speed, drive recklessly or drive being drunked can cause serious accidents.By having rules, regulations,conditions and punishments can protect road users and reduce the risk of injuries and deaths.

Secondly, these punishments will teach the offenders to be more responsible.They will understand that breaking traffic laws has serious consequences and might think twice before committing the offence again.They will be more careful when they are driving.If they want to drive again,they should prove that they have improved by attending driving courses or passing another driving test.

In my opinion, by having punishments people will be more aware of their surroundings and will think twice when committing a offence.These punishments are effective as it protects the public and encourage safer driving.

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is convicted with littering in Singapore, he may receive a 2-12 hours of corrective work order in public areas and/or a fine of $300 or more, depending the amount of repeated charges given.

These punishments were made so to allow perpetrators to experience the difficulties faced by cleaners as they have to work all day to be met with more trash on the ground. This will allow the offender to be more aware in the future of their actions. At the same time, it also encourages the members of the public to practice personal ownership in keeping Singapore clean for Society. Since the offence will affect the cleanliness of the area of those who live in Singapore and the cleaners, therefore the punishment must include, a fine and corrective work order where they have to wear identifiable vests in the public so all will be aware.

Personally though, I personally feel that they may not be enough as it cannot simply change the minds and habits of the perpetrators that have done it multiple times, I think that repeated offenders should be required to have compulsory rehabilitation sessions where they teach them why they should not litter so to reduce the risk of offending as their time will be spent on it.

In addition, after their corrective work order, I think they could be placed under close supervision or regular reporting requirements for a period of time.

In my opinion, punishment should not only deter offenders but also society in causing this offence, to reduce the amount of repeated offences and to protect cleanliness in the society.

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is caught littering in Singapore, he will be punished to do Corrective Work Order (CWO).

The Corrective Work Order (CWO) came into effect on 1 November 1992, is an amendment to the anti-littering law. It was a punitive measure that requires the offender to clean up the community instead of paying a fine. The location which the punishment take place is usually located in a public area where a lot of people usually gather, for example the malls and hawker centre.

I agree with the punishment of making littering offenders do Corrective Work Order (CWO), as it forces offenders to make amends for dirtying the environment, and experience the difficulty of the cleaners who work so hard to keep the environment clean. This makes the offenders feel empathy for the cleaners, and guilty and shame for littering which makes them work more tirelessly.

In addition, it also serves as a punishment to shame the offenders in public as they will be wearing bright luminous vest which are very noticeable in public areas as there will be a lot of people. The offenders will be in the located area for a few hours and need to collect a certain amount of trash, which will be mortifying and awkward for them as they need to endure the stares of the public. This will deter the offenders and others from littering and doing similar things.

In my opinion, the punishment should not only deter offenders but also reduce the chance of similar crimes happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is caught for driving offence, he/she may receive a jail sentence, fines, or earn demerit points which can revoke their licence. Depending on the offence they committed.

This punishments has been created for this kind of offence to maintain law and order while on the road and to make drivers more self-aware of what they do before and while driving knowing that if they are caught with any offences such as not wearing seatbelt, using phone while driving, driving through a red light, drunk driving and speeding. As this will lead to consequences and punishments that will affect them, meaning that they will need to pay fines and lose money.

In my opinion, I feel that this punishments are harsh enough to teach drivers about following traffic laws and that if one is speeding or drunk driving, which may risk the lives of other. They should be given full demerit points and licence should be revoked immediately. This can teach them more about taking accountability and also warning others to follow traffic laws so that others wont have to experience the same fate as the offender. In addition, this punishments are made to maintain law on the road for the safety of the driver and others

# data[].attributes.body
A person who has been caught for littering has been punished with 2 hours of corrective work order. I agree with giving a corrective work order to people who litter. This punishment teaches everyone their responsibility to keep the environment clean. Instead of just paying a fine, offenders must spend time cleaning public places. This helps them understand how much effort is needed to clean up rubbish on the ground. I think this punishment is fair because people learn from their mistakes and think twice before littering again. Furthermore, seeing someone do corrective work, reminds others not to litter, and keep our parks and streets clean. Overall, I believe corrective work order is a great punishment because it teaches responsibility, benefits the community and encourages everyone to take better care of the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the punishment is fair because stealing such a valuable item is a serious crime that causes significant financial loss to the victim. A prison sentence and a fine can discourage others from committing similar offences. It also shows that the law protects businesses and members of the public from theft. I am impressed that the police managed to arrest the suspects within three hours, showing that crimes are taken seriously in Singapore. Overall, I agree with the punishment because it promotes justice, deters future offenders, and helps maintain public trust in the country's legal system and public safety.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that a person who was caught littering should be punished with a 2-hour corrective work order. This punishment was created because it teaches people to take responsibility for their actions instead of only paying a fine. When offenders have to clean public places, they can see how much effort is needed to keep environment clean. It also reminds them that littering affects everyone, not just themselves. Besides that, people who see them doing the cleaning may think twice before littering as well. Although some people may think 2 hours is not enough , I think it is still a meaningful punishment because it focuses on changing their behaviour rather than only giving pain. It helps offenders learn from their mistakes and become a more responsible citizen. In my opinion, this punishment is fair because it benefits both the offender and the community , even if some people do not change immediately.

# data[].attributes.body
As for the offence of Housebreaking and its punishment, a short to medium length of jail time is fair and I agree on it, but can have some other punishment. The reason on why I agree is because Housebreaking violates trespassing, theft and possible harmful intent, even traumatizing the owner of the house they invaded. As for the added punishments,deterrence and rehabilitation might be reasonable, a ankle monitor would be suitable to keep track of them and keep them in their house to cause no further harm toward society. The jail time should be a medium length and deterrence after departing from the jail. In my opinion punishment is suitable but can be more

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the punishment due to the reason being, he was intoxicated and yet still drove his car aware of the threats of drunk driving. All the damages repairs cost up to $64,580, adding more onto the punishment. Adding a fine to his punishment would seem reasonable due to the damages he owes Suntec, and maybe grant Demerit points once he gets his license back

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is caught for housebreaking in Singapore, he may received jail for a short or medium period of time, depending on what are stolen or damage.

This punishment is to teach them a lesson and for the others from doing the same crime. This is to punish the offender for breaking the law of housebreaking from stealing things or damage the house while family may feel scared and not safe. Victims of housebreaking may feel traumatic and lose their sense of safety. Therefore, the punishment needs to include a short medium jail sentence and in some cases, the offender may also be fined depending on their circumstances.

Personally though, I feel they may not always be enough and these effects cannot simply be measured by the length of a prison sentence. I think offenders should also be required to undergo compulsory psychological counselling or rehabilitation programmes to reduce the risk of reoffending housebreaking.

In addition, this offender can do more community services like clean public places or help the community organisations to repay the society. For the counselling or rehabilitation programmes to help offenders to change their behaviour and reducing chances of offending and to change their personality.

In my opinion, punishment should not only deter offenders but also protect society and reduce the chances of similar crimes happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
A man who was convicted of drink driving in Singapore received a five-week jail sentence and was banned from driving for 2.5 years.

These punishments show that Singapore treats drink driving as a serious crime because it puts many lives at risk. The man drank about a litre of beer, drove dangerously and crashed into the Fountain of Wealth at Suntec City. There were people nearby who could have been injured or killed. Therefore, a jail sentence and a driving ban are needed to punish the offender and protect the public.

Personally, I feel that these punishments are not enough. Offenders should also attend compulsory drink-driving programmes or counselling to help them understand the dangers of drink driving and stop them from repeating the offence.

In addition, repeat offenders should receive longer jail sentences and longer driving bans. They could also do community service related to road safety so they understand the consequences of their actions.

In my opinion, punishments for drink driving should not only punish offenders but also protect the public and prevent others from making the same dangerous mistake.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the demerit point system ter driving oftences. This punishment was created to encourage drivers te ebry traffic rules and drive safely.

Instead of immediately taking away a driver's tinte livence for one small mistake, the system gives drivers a chance to improve. However, if they continue breaking the law and collect toe many demerit paints, their license will be suspended.

This system " fair because it considers a drivers overall behaviour.

and also provects othere read users by removing dangerous drivers from

the road. knowing that repeated offences can lead to losing their lisense encourages drivers to be more careful and responsible. Ara result, there are likely to be fewer accidents and safer reads for everyone. Therefore, believe the demerit print system is an effective and veasonable punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
This news is very sad and upsetting. The elderly man had dementia and depended on his maid to care for him, but she abused him instead. I think the punishment she received is not enough because she hurt a helpless 97-year-old man many times. She broke the trust that her employer and his family had in her. I believe she should have received a longer jail sentence and should never be allowed to work as a caregiver again. This would better protect other elderly people and send a strong message that abuse of vulnerable people will not be tolerated.

# data[].attributes.body
The crime is driving under the influence of drugs and causing death. The man’s driving licence was suspended immediately , and he could be jailed for 2-4years as he is a repeat offender.

I think the punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime.

I agree that the punishment will make people think twice before driving under the influence of drugs. Suspending the offender’s licence can ensure that drivers who behave recklessly are kept off the roads. This will lead to safer roads.

# data[].attributes.body
If a person is caught of littering in public places,he or she can be fined,go for corrective work order or both. The punishment various in how many times did the offender commit such actions and the seriousness of the offence like ranging from littering in public’s places to throwing rubbish/littering from high rise building.

These punishments are to show how serious Singapore is to maintain a clean green city,ensure safety of the public and to ensure that street cleaners don’t have more work to do.The punishments are to deter someone from committing such action and make them think twice if they want to do it.

Personally though,I feel that the punishment serves as a stern warning to deter other  people from committing such action to ensure the cleanliness of Singapore.However the punishment is very harsh and embarrassing, for context  Corrective Work Order (COW) is a punishment where offenders who litter and is caught are given this punishment are given designated location, usually crowded places like city or open public area to have them publicly shamed of their action and the time is probably someone in the peak hour like lunch etc.After the punishment, some of the offenders walk out fine while some may face psychological or mental break down or issues, maybe face depression, social anxiety and others. The offence is recorded down and can affect a person employment status and a person looking for employment

Personally I feel that the punishment is somewhat too harsh itself and at the same time without this punishment, with the usually fines it would not be as effective as Corrective Work Order (COW). Through research, the chance of an offender of recommitting a similar or same crime is significantly low at about 2% while the chance of not committing the same or similar crime is 98%.There are many possible substitution to this harsh punishment like counselling,probation or strict monitoring but it is either not as effective or wasting man power or resource. COW can allow offenders not only to clean up the street and reflecting themselves, it also give a warning to anybody who dares to do it to stop doing and ensure the cleanliness of Singapore and ease the workload of cleaners.

In my opinion punishment is not about fining or counselling them and call it day hoping they learnt their lesson, there are this stubborn people who refuse to turn a new leaf. Punishment is meant for a high chance of change of leaf, deterring a person from committing the same offence, to ensure a clean Singapore for everybody.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that the man who burgled his neighbour home for cash,jewellery and others should get longer sentence. He didn’t only did that one time but 4 more times after the first time. In total he stole cash and valuables amounting to S$9,900. And the woman should have been more careful about leaving the window along the corridor unlocked.

# data[].attributes.body
The current punishment for drivers who commit various driving offences are given demerit points and if they exceed a certain number, their licence would be revoked and they would be given a penalty period before they can retake the tests for their licence. If they continue to get their licence revoked, they will receive a lifetime ban from driving in Singapore.

Personally, I agree with these punishments, as these offenders should receive the punishment for their dangerous acts on the roads as it does not only put danger on road users but also pedestrians walking innocently on the sidewalks and the lifetime ban serves as a warning for them if they continue to carry out these offences on the roads.

In my opinion, the punishment should not only deter offenders but also to protect society and reduce the chances of the same or similar offences from happening again

# data[].attributes.body
A man receives over 9 years of jail imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane and fined $3000 for rape, scam-related offences and 12 other offences.

I agree with these punishments because this shows how serious Singapore is with law and how they punish offenders like these. The long term jail imprisonment sentence and 12 strokes of the cane can discourage or prevent offenders from repeating offences again. These punishments help protect victims and the Society from being assaulted.

In my opinion, these punishments are great to deter offenders from repeating offences again and the society will be more safer from crimes or threats in the future

# data[].attributes.body
A person being caught for driving offences will be given demerit points for various small offences and if it exceeds a certain number, his/her license will be taken away.

This punishment has been created to deter reckless drivers, people doing DUI, and to keep Singapore’s roads safe and peaceful, to warn anyone reckless to drive safely, and get to their destination or home safe. It is essentially a chance system that gives you chances before you face consequences.

I agree with this punishment as it will have drivers drive peacefully and worry-free. Especially since there are millions of drivers on the highway, and main road everyday. There may be families in cars or people who wants to get home safe and if there are tons of reckless drivers everywhere, these people may not make it to their destination.

Overall, this law has kept dozens of roads safe in Singapore. If it weren’t for it, our roads would be a chaotic mess. It also makes people not repeat the same mistake on the road again, or they won’t be able to drive.

# data[].attributes.body
This crime is about burglary. Worst part is that it is in expensive houses. This man was in Singapore for the first time, and decided to burgle houses from Sentosa and Serangoon gardens homes, stole items worth 105k, and eventually got caught.

I feel that he should get a 2 year jail sentence and to compensate the owners of the items as it is not any light crime to be stealing such expensive items.

# data[].attributes.body
The 82-year-old man was sentenced to two weeks’ jail, fined S$2,000, and banned from driving for two years after driving his girlfriend’s car without permission using a licence that had expired in 1995. He crashed the car after accidentally pressing the accelerator instead of the brake. He was found guilty of driving without a valid licence, driving without insurance, driving without due care and attention, and taking the vehicle without the owner's consent.

I agree that the punishment was appropriate because he committed several traffic offences that endangered public safety, even though no one was injured. He drove illegally, caused a crash, and had no valid reason for driving when he could have used other transport. The jail sentence, fine, and driving ban punish his actions and deter others from committing similar offences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man, 82, crashed girlfriend’s car, jailed for driving with licence that expired in 1995

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Loh Chun Meng drove his 57-year-old girlfriend’s car without her permission. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
If a person has been caught littering in Singapore, he may receive fine or corrective work order, depending of the seriousness of the offence.

These punishments able to make them feel ashamed and embarrassed of what they had done previously. I think that this can be a chance to them them some lessons. They can feel what others are feeling after they littered. For example, if a person spit chewing gum onto bench or chair outside, cleaners may feel difficult to clean off as it is very sticky, it may be worse if it is a sunny day and the weather gets too hot, the gum might be melted. For others, if they accidentally sat onto it, they may be very awkward and uncomfortable. It creates unnecessary troubles for others.

Personally though, some people just take it as it is, they might think that these punishments are light and easy and do it again next time. For offenders that did it continuously, can be considered of doing canning to reduce the risk of reoffending.

In my opinion, punishments that has been created was not simply just to punish offenders, but also to protect the environment, the society.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about an NTU student who tried to secretly film women in a hall toilet. In my opinion, what the student did was not correct as everyone has the right to privacy, especially in places like school where people expect to feel safe. Secretly recording others without their permission is a serious crime that can cause fear, embarrassment, and emotional harm to the victims. If the offender has a mental health condition that contributed to his actions, treatment may help prevent him from committing similar offences in the future. However, he should still be held responsible for breaking the law because his actions affected other people's safety and trust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NTU student who tried to film women in hall toilet to be assessed for mandatory treatment order

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Zhong Ting, who stayed in a residential hall himself, had come across an advertisement on online classifieds platform Locanto offering payment for voyeuristic material.

# data[].attributes.body
A person who has been caught littering receive corrective work order and/ or receive fines

This punishments serve as a way to deter offenders from littering again it works s corrective work order helps to teach them how hard the public cleaners have to clean everyday which helps build empathy. Their bright uniforms helps attract other citizens to look at them and this may make them feel a sense of shame and embarrassment while doing the corrective work order, this feeling of shame will help deter them from committing the same crime again.the time period will also serve as a way for offenders to reflect on their actions.

Personally I agree with the punishment as it will help benefit others around them as it helps protect the cleanliness of Singapore while also protecting the environment not only that it also teaches them how respect the space given to us and the crime is not severe  I agree with the punishment given.

I also think that adding fines will also help as dustbins are everywhere which doesn’t give them any right to litter. The space which is kept by the exhausting job of a cleaner should also be respected so by adding a fine this will deter them from littering again.

In my opinion this is a amazing way to help protect the space, our environment and respect those who help to keep it clean.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article a man had murdered his roommate with a knife and poured boiling oil on him, he had received life imprisonment.

In my opinion, I feel that this is not enough of a punishment for him as the victim had boiling oil poured over him before his death which definitely had a great deal of pain.At this point this is basically torturing the poor victim before taking his life away. In the end, He only received life imprisonment after he claimed that he felt remorseful after murdering his roommate but feeling remorseful does not change the fact that he stilled killed someone. This whole event could have been properly dealt with if the victim simply moved or changed apartments which would have never let to this.

So that’s why I feel the punishment does not fit the crime and the punishment should had been more severe.

# data[].attributes.body
Details: (In this article, a man made a makeshift device that looked like a crossbow. Using it to launch ball bearings at crows.

It was considered a weapon under the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act. He was charged with mischief as he shot ball bearings that damaged a neighbours window and 2 other charges.

These led to him getting charged with a rash act endangering personal safety, which could sentence him to be jailed for up to six months and fined up to $2500. His maximum penalties could be doubled as his charge’s incidents had incurred multiple times.)

These punishments were given as, by charging the offender with imprisonment and a fine, it makes them deterrent to commit the offence again. Protecting the public and others from harm.

Since the offence affects the safety of others in society. Therefore, the charges, imprisonment and fines are good to act as a deterrent.

Personally though, I feel that he should be charged with some corrective work order or some mandatory treatment order as I feel like even if he is done serving his time and has payed his fine, he may still do it as he will still be annoyed by the crows. So by suggesting that, he will be able to change his mindset or mental health so that he will not commit the offence again.

In my opinion, punishments should not only deter offenders but help them to change such that it will reduce the chances of it happening more, just by spending more time. Moreover, it will protect the safety of Society.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with giving a person 2 hours of corrective work order (CWO) for littering . This punishment was created to tech people the importance of keeping the environment clean. Instead of only paying a fine, offenders have to clean places, which helps them understand how much effort is needed to clear litter. It also reminds them to be more responsible in the future.

This punishment is effective because it helps both the offender and the community. The offender learns a valuable lesson, while the public enjoys a cleaner environment. Seeing people doing correctiveWork may also discourage others from littering. Everyone has a responsibility to keep our surroundings clean, and this punishment. encourages people to think before they throw rubbish on the ground Overall, I believe (CWO) is a fair and meaningful way to reduce Environmental pollution

# data[].attributes.body
Demerit points was created to deter drivers for drives who broke the rules while driving. This system helps deter the drivers from breaking the rules on the road which helps protect others drivers and citizens. when drivers receive a demerit point this will scare them as if they get a certain number of points they will get their license revoked which will deter them or help stop them from driving as carelessly as before. I agree with this punishment as it helps protect the lives of other citizens and other drivers and if they still break the rules they will get their license revoked which is good as if they reach the point it means they can’t be trusted with driving and should not be on the road as they pose a risk to all other drivers and citizens

# data[].attributes.body
Two men from a foreign gang were sentenced to jail in Singapore after stealing belongings from unattended bags. The offenders targeted victims’ possessions and took various items, most of which were later recovered. However, the prosecution stated that the remaining unrecovered items caused a loss of approximately $250. The case demonstrates the serious consequences of theft and organized criminal activity in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.body
in my opinion, the court's decision was fair because the man was suffering from a genuine mental illness that affected his thinking and caused him to believe things that were not real. Although his actions led to a serious fire that injured people and caused significant damage, there was no evidence that he intended to harm others. He also called the scdf and warned his neighbours to evacuate, showing that he tried to reduce the danger once the fire started. Therefore, placing him under a Mandatory Treatment Order while holding him accountable for his actions is a balanced approach. It helps protect the public while ensuring that he receives the psychiatric treatment he needs to prevent similar incidents in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
The dermit demerit points system is created to encourage drivers to follow traffic rules. Instead of giving punishments after one mistake. This "points" system helps drivers to learn to correct themselves While keeping track of their behaviour. If a driver continue to not follow traffic rules, their driving license will be suspended. This helps to remove inesponsible drivers on the road, keeping it safe so others will not get harmed or injured.

I agree with this punishment as it is fair while keeping it safe. Drivers who accidentally make this offence can be let go with a warning and not get blamed wrongly, while those who repeatedly choose to ignore traffic rule to face more serious consequences. Losing their drivers license is a very strong type of punishment as some people rely on this heavily as their everyday torm of transport. This will reduces the risk of accidents. Therefore, i agree with this punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that a person who is caught littering should do two hours of corrective work order. This punishment was created because littering makes places dirty and gives cleaners more work. It also teaches people to be responsible for their actions.I think this is a good punishment because people who litter have to clean public places. They can see that keeping the environment clean is not easy. This may stop them from littering again. It also reminds other people not to throw rubbish on the ground.I think this punishment is better than only paying a fine. People can learn from their mistakes and become more responsible. It also helps to keep our community clean. Therefore, I agree that corrective work order is a fair and useful punishment for littering.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this punishment. People who litter should do 2 hours of corrective work order because it help them learn from their mistakes. They have to clean up the rubbish in public places, so they can see that cleaning is not easy. This may make them think twice before littering again.

I think this punishment is better than only giving a fine . Some people may not care about paying money , but cleaning in public areas can make them feel more responsible. It also reminds other people not to litter. If everyone throw rubbish into the bin , our streets and parks will be cleaner. A clean environment is better for everyone so I think this is fair and useful punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this punishment of giving a someone who litters of 2 hour Corrective Work Order (CWO). This punishment was created to teach offenders to take responsibility for their actions and understand the impact of littering on the environment. Instead of only paying a fine offenders have to clean public places while wearing a bright vest saying CWO . This allows them to experience the amount of effort and hard work that is needed to keep Singapore clean.

It also a reminder and warning to other people not to litter because they are able to see the consequences of breaking the law. This encourages more people to think before throwing rubbish on the ground. A clean environment is important for everyone’s  health reducing pollution and it makes our country a safer cleaner and a more pleasant place to live in.

I believe this punishment is fair because it helps offenders learn from their mistakes instead of just paying money and moving on. This encourages them to become more responsible citizens who respects public spaces and care for the environment.I think it is a very meaningful punishment that benefits both the offenders and the community as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The Singapore government plans to introduce stricter punishments for dangerous driving and drink driving. Drivers who seriously hurt others may receive longer jail sentences, and the alcohol limit before driving may also become lower.

I think these new rules are a good idea because dangerous driving can cause serious accidents. One careless mistake can hurt innocent people and change their lives. Drivers should always think about the safety of others before they drive.

I also think punishment alone is not enough. Drivers who break the law should attend road safety lessons to learn from their mistakes. This can help them become more responsible and prevent the same problem from happening again.

In my opinion, these stricter rules will make the roads safer and encourage people to drive more carefully.

# data[].attributes.body
A man who was involved in an organised scam was sentenced to 4 years jail and fined with $ 52000. The syndicate used thousands of SIM cards to create many  anonymous WhatsApp and WeChat accounts that was later used by scammers. The scams included job scams investment scams and government official impersonation scams. The victims lost a total of $51 million

These punishments were created to stop organised crimes and protects people from becoming victims of scams. A long jail sentence and a heavy fine shows that Singapore takes scam crimes very seriously. It also warns others not to join or support criminal groups even if they are only investing money and not carrying out the scams themselves.

I agree with this punishment because the offender knew that the business was illegal and that the chat accounts could be used for scams. Even though he was not involved in the daily operations he helped by investing money allowing it to grow. Doing that thousands of innocent people lost their savings.

And a long jail sentence gives the offender a lot of time to reflect on their actions and prevents them from committing crimes while in prison.I think the punishment is fair because it protects the public discourages others from joining scam and helps keep Singapore safe.

# data[].attributes.body
A domestic helper in Singapore stole over S$217,000 worth of cash and jewellery from her employer over several years and used the money to buy properties, a car, and farmland in the Philippines. She was eventually caught, arrested, and sentenced to more than three years in prison.

I feel that this article is a reminder of how important trust and honesty are. The employer welcomed her into their home and relied on her, but she chose to take advantage of that trust. Although the money may have improved her life for a short time, her actions led to serious consequences that affected both her future and her employer. I think no amount of wealth is worth losing your integrity, and this case shows that dishonest actions often have lasting consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
a man in singapore was charged with drink driving after his car hit a police car. the accident happened at about 4am near orchard road. luckily, no one was badly hurt.

this case shows that drink driving is very dangerous. when people drink alcohol, they cannot drive properly. they may not react quickly and can cause accidents. this can put many people’s lives at risk. that is why drink driving is against the law.

personally, i agree that the driver should be punished. besides going to court, he should also be banned from driving for some time and attend counselling. this can help him learn from his mistake and stop him from drink driving again. everyone should drive safely and follow the law to keep the roads safe.

# data[].attributes.body
if a person is caught for a driving offence in singapore, they may receive demerit points, a fine or even lose their driving licence, depending on how serious the offence is. these punishments are meant to encourage drivers to follow the traffic rules and keep everyone safe on the road.

in my opinion, i think the demerit point system is a good law because it teaches drivers to be more responsible. if drivers know they can lose demerit points for speeding, using their mobile phone while driving or beating a red light, they will be more careful. this can help to reduce accidents and protect other road users.

i also feel that drivers who cause serious accidents should receive more demerit points than those who commit small offences. if someone is badly injured because of careless driving, the driver should face a heavier punishment. overall, i believe the demerit point system is fair because it reminds drivers to obey the law and helps to make singapore’s roads safer for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article, I felt that having stricter traffic laws are important and necessary. The Government plans to impose harsher penalties for dangerous driving and lower the legal alcohol limit for drink driving.This will decrease the amount of risks and accidents. I think these changes are important because reckless drivers can seriously injure or even kill innocent people.

In my opinion, the stricter punishments are fair as they can discourage dangerous behaviour.For example, breaking the law. Moreover these will protect the public and make the public feel safe.Besides fines and imprisonment, repeat offenders should also face longer driving bans.This will remind everyone to drive responsibly and help keep Singapore's roads safe.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this news article, I felt horrified. It showed that a man was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his own roommate with a knife and boiling oil after months of arguments while living together. Their disagreements as how normal roommates should communicate properly such as smoking, laundry, and a visiting girlfriend, which eventually led to a tragic and violent crime.

I find it concerning that an incident like this happened in Singapore. although living together in a small space for a long period can cause arguments, these conflicts should never be solved with violence. They should have communicated and be fixable with each others agreements.

In my opinion, the life imprisonment punishment is reasonable because killing someone and letting them out in the public may cause a not safe singapore and they might do something like this again. Serious crimes like murder deserve severe punishment to ensure justice for the victim.This will remind us to always resolve our conflicts with our mouths and not get physical.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly believe that a person who commits housebreaking should be sentenced to jail because it is a serious offence that affects both the victims and the community. Housebreaking is not just about stealing valuable items. It also involves invading someone’s privacy and entering a place where people should feel the safest, their own home. Victims often feel frightened, anxious, and emotionally affected after a break in. Some may even be afraid to stay home alone or have trouble sleeping because they constantly worry that it could happen again. Besides causing financial losses, housebreaking also takes away a person’s sense of safety and peace of mind.

One of the main reasons I support imprisonment is because it protects society and holds offenders accountable for their actions. If offenders are not given a serious punishment, they may continue committing similar crimes and put more innocent families at risk. By sending them to jail, they are prevented from harming others for a period of time, giving the community a greater sense of security. A jail sentence also shows that the law takes housebreaking seriously and that anyone who chooses to break into another person’s home must face the consequences of their actions. This reminds people that everyone has a responsibility to respect the law and the property of others.

In addition, imprisonment can help offenders change for the better. Many prisons provide counselling, education, and rehabilitation programmes that encourage offenders to reflect on their mistakes and develop skills for a better future. At the same time, jail acts as a deterrent by warning others of the serious consequences of committing housebreaking. If people know they could lose their freedom and end up with a criminal record, they are less likely to take the risk. Overall, I believe imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment because it protects the public, delivers justice to victims, encourages offenders to reform, and helps prevent similar crimes from happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this news article, I felt surprised because I did not expect such a large company to be involved in fraud. The article reported that Lim Oon Kuin, also known as O.K. Lim, the founder of Hin Leong Trading, was sentenced to 17 and a half years’ jail for cheating HSBC out of more than US$111 million by using fake documents and fake oil transactions to obtain loans. His actions caused huge financial losses and affected Singapore’s reputation as a trusted business hub.

I think this is a very serious crime because he planned it over a long period of time instead of making a one time mistake. Many people may think only the bank was affected, but businesses, investors, and employees could also suffer because of what he did. This case also shows how dishonesty in business can affect many innocent people.

In my opinion, the punishment is fair because the amount of money involved was extremely large and the crime was carefully planned. Even though O.K. Lim is old and has health problems, I do not think that should excuse his actions. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, no matter how rich or successful they are. I hope this case reminds businesses to always act honestly and shows that anyone who breaks the law must face the consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Theft is a serious crime that can happen anywhere, even in Singapore. When someone steals, the victim not only loses their belongings but may also feel upset or angry and very unsafe. Singapore has strict laws to stop people from stealing, and I think these laws are necessary. If the punishment is too light, more people may think theft is easy to get away. However, punishment alone is not enough. Offenders should also be given a chance to learn from their mistakes through community programmes. This can help them become better people and reduce the chances of stealing again. In this way, Singapore can remain a safe and secure place for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I think a person who is caught for house breaking should be jailed for a medium to long length of time, because it is a very serious crime and it could be considered as trespassing, invading privacy, and could possibly give children trauma, making them feel unsafe in their own home. The punishment is mean to prevent thieves to do these illegal actions and to separate them from society. I agree with this punishment because a short to medium jail sentence isn’t enough to teach them a lesson, which they might commit this offence again, while long sentences can make them regret in their jail cells and make them learn their lessons. It also gives then a long time to reflect on their wrong actions.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason  why a person caught for house breaking in will be jailed for two years is because of the severity of the crime.And the reason this punishment has been created is so that those who have been caught for  break in will be away from society and will have time to rethink their actions.It will be good for them to be away from society as there’s houses all over Singapore  and that might want them to break into houses  again.Being in prison  will also give them time  to think of their actions and potentially  want them to turn over a new leaf.I agree with this punishment as those who did the crime should be away from the public just until they know what they did was wrong and also so that they are not a danger to society (written work)

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is a fair punishment as he committed a serious crime and got a serious consequence,but I also do think that his consequence could be worse as his crime was way too serious .this punishment will also give the offender enough time to reflect and realise his mistake,the punishment will also be a warning to those who are doing the same crime or to those who have a intention to do it that one day they will end up in his shoes. But I think that the convicted person should also receive canning or at least a fine so that he will remember what he did for a life time and not just do the crime again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
$3b money laundering case: Man jailed 32 weeks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A man involved in Singapore’s $3 billion money laundering case has been jailed for 32 weeks for falsifying financial figures for shell companies and cheating the IRAS. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

2. Social media harms mental health.

Anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.

Counterargument

Social media also allows children to stay connected.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

3. Children are vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Bullying can occur anonymously.

Counterargument

Schools can teach digital literacy.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(2) "Some social media platforms should be banned for young children." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

4. Social media can be addictive.

Excessive screen time affects studies and sleep.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

1. Keeping animals in captivity is unethical.

Animals lose freedom.

Counterargument

Modern zoos provide excellent care.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

2. Captivity causes stress to animals.

Limited space and unnatural environments.

Counterargument

Modern enclosures mimic natural habitats.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

3. Animals may develop abnormal behaviours.

Pacing and repetitive actions.

Counterargument

Care programmes have been designed to reduce such behaviours.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.headline
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.subject
(4) "Zoos should be banned." Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.body
Possible Arguments (Agree)

4. Wildlife sanctuaries are better alternatives.

Focus on rehabilitation rather than exhibition.

Counterargument

Sanctuaries cannot accommodate all species.

Write your Possible Rebuttal:

# data[].attributes.body
Most social media may be dangerous or graphic for kids, but I think kids can still use the internet underbstrict supervision and using apps like YouTube Kids and maybe communicate with friends by Whatsapp

# data[].attributes.body
Even though social media allows children to stay connected, they can harm their mental health by looking at the negative comments that they receive from their videos.

# data[].attributes.body
-Parental supervison cannot be constant and children may still come across harmful social media platforms for young children

# data[].attributes.body
Parents cannot watch out children all the time. Banning some social media platforms can better protect young children.

# data[].attributes.body
parental supervision is important, but some parents cannot monitor their children all the time due to working overtime or busy schedules.

# data[].attributes.body
parents cannot supervise for 24 hours a day but restricting certain content can be better

# data[].attributes.body
Social media also increases mental risks, although the internet makes kids make more friends, but theres also harms that might mentally hurt them, like hurtful comments negative content directed to them, and possibly more

# data[].attributes.body
An alternative to this can be to develop self-discipline in them so to not get influenced by it. This is because parents will not be able to monitor their child 24 hours a day as they got other responsibilities to deal with.

# data[].attributes.body
Kids can still use social media but they don’t need supervision as the way they will learn and know how to use social media and learn what is good and what is bad

# data[].attributes.body
While social media helps children stay connected, they can communicate through safer platforms or in person, and that they should have the discipline when communicating.

# data[].attributes.body
Even with parent supervision, parents do not have all the time to supervise their child’s screen usage . A ban is more effective as it restricts and ensures childrens are not involved or being exposed to inappropriate and harmful content

# data[].attributes.body
Although digital literacy helps children recognise online risks, it cannot completely prevent cyberbullying. Limiting access to certain platforms reduces the chances of children becoming victims.

# data[].attributes.body
Parents may not be able to supervise their children when using social media but they can put a restriction on their child’s phone so that their videos they watch are within their age limit

# data[].attributes.body
Although social media allows children to stay connected with others, excessive use can cause anxiety, low self-esteem and stress. Therefore, protecting children's mental health is more important than allowing unrestricted access to these platforms

# data[].attributes.body
the harm of mental health outweighs social media, their mental health is worth more than social media

# data[].attributes.body
Parents cannot watch their children all the time Banning some platforms gives children better protection

# data[].attributes.body
Even when social media allows children to stay connected. They may still come across anonymous people which they dont know of causing them to be afraid and have a high anxiety

# data[].attributes.body
Even though schools teaches students how to stay safe while using online platforms, it is difficult to stop cyber bullying from happening

# data[].attributes.body
social media can help children stay connected. however, bullying can also happen through messages

# data[].attributes.body
Although social media allows children to stay connected, it can also expose them to cyber bullying which can inflict harm on their mental health.

# data[].attributes.body
Social media can be addictive, even if you have self-discipline, a majority of students and kids struggle to keep their phones away for awhile

# data[].attributes.body
Schools can teach digital literacy and online safety. Even with digital literacy, cyberbullying can still happen. Young children may not have the maturity to handle it, so restricting certain platforms is safer.

# data[].attributes.body
Children can stay connected in other ways. Protecting their mental health is more important

# data[].attributes.body
Children can stay connected in other ways, such as meeting friends or talking to family. Their mental health is more important.

# data[].attributes.body
Social media helps children stay connected with friends and family. Children can stay connected through safer messaging apps, phone calls, or face-to-face interactions without the negative effects of some social media platforms.

# data[].attributes.body
digital literacy can help students learn about the harms of the internet. however, it does not prevent cyberbullying

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching digital literacy is helpful, but bullying can still happen. Banning some platforms can reduce the risk.

# data[].attributes.body
Students can access apps which are common in cyberbullying, so even if they have digital literacy, its still easy for them to encounter cyber bullying

# data[].attributes.body
Children can stay connected through safer alternatives, so social media is not necessary and should be banned for young children

# data[].attributes.body
Parental supervision is not always possible and children may still be exposed to harmful content.So banning these platforms for young children provides better protection.

# data[].attributes.body
Parents are not able to watch over their children on how they use social media and too much supervision of your children may lead your children to feel a lack of privacy and this may lead the children to become defiant or misbehave

# data[].attributes.body
Modern zoos still contain animals in a small enclosed environment not like their habitat, potentially leading to stress or more negativity. Personally i believe Nature reserves are better

# data[].attributes.body
Parents can set screen time limits.Many children find it difficult to control their screen time. Banning highly addictive platforms helps reduce excessive use and improves sleep and academic performance.

# data[].attributes.body
Even with screen-time limits, many children struggle to control their social media use because these platforms are designed to keep users engaged. Banning certain platforms can help reduce addiction and encourage healthier habits.

# data[].attributes.body
Young children may not control their screen time well. Banning some platforms can help them focus on study and sleep

# data[].attributes.body
Although schools can teach digital literacy, these lessons cannot completely prevent cyberbullying a reason for this is because cyberbullying is done descreetly so Children may still become victims of online abuse, so banning some social media platforms offers better protection.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching children is not enough, Cyberbullying can still happen, so banning some platforms gives better protection for the children

# data[].attributes.body
Social media allows children to stay connected however, there are many other ways to stay connected for example like spending time physically at the playground which promotes communication skills and also encourage them to stay fit and be active instead on being glued to the screen.

# data[].attributes.body
using the internet is addictive. however, we can set app limits to prevent the addiction

# data[].attributes.body
Digital literacy cannot completely prevent cyberbullying because bullied can remain anonymous and cause harm and hurt to children