Recently, a young trio were hauled up for posting some racist comments on facebook. Some people said they were too young and silly to understand the implications of what they were saying. Others said that racism is too dangerous a problem to ignore and that they must be taught a hard lesson. What’s the right answer? How harsh should we be on youngsters who post material on the internet that may get them in trouble with the law? Should age matter? Or should we adopt a strong stand against such kids, to enhance the deterrent effect?

Well my fellow debaters, what do you think?

[Best Comment of the month stands to win an exclusive DA(S) 5-VCD debate set with accompanying guide booklets]

Private and public sector institutions in Singapore offer a dazzling array of scholarships every year. Students who perform well in their A level examinations (or equivalent) can apply for prestigious scholarships to fund their university education and assure them of great career trajectory after graduation.  The financial support from these scholarships often includes full tuition fees for the university of their choice (often amounting to US$300,000 and above, for Ivy League universities ), and can sometimes even include a small (or large) allowance for living expenditure. The scholarship system in Singapore is designed on a purely meritocratic basis – that is, as long as you are good enough, you can get the scholarship. It does not take into account your financial status – thus, many scholars actually come from families that could have already afforded to send their child to university without government funding.

So here is the question, my potentially-scholarship-receiving fellow debaters: Should our scholarship system remain based on purely meritocratic grounds, or should we take into account socioeconomic considerations? Is there a difference, and if so, is it an important difference? Let’s hear your views!

[Best Comment of the month stands to win an exclusive DA(S) 5-VCD debate set with accompanying guide booklets]