Self Reflection

Effective communications has really been an eye opener for me. I was pretty confident in my communication and writing skills until I attended this module. I realized that my grammar was pretty poor and sentence structuring is actually a thing. I have definitely improved on many aspects of writing reports and essays after attending this module.

However, after being in the construction industry for more than 2 years, I feel that certain aspects of the module is not required. One such aspect will be the powerpoint presentation. As future civil engineers, a presentation is almost non existent. It was good for exposure sake and I had fun doing it but I feel that it was not necessary.

Another aspect that I wish to highlight will be writing summaries and reader’s response. Again, in the construction industry, writing summaries and reader’s response is non existent. Instead of writing summaries and responses, I would recommend imparting the skills of summarizing and speed reading contents accurately. Both skills are very vital to our daily work as engineers as we have to go through lots of method statements and contract specifications.

Although I feel that there are some redundant aspects, this module does have its key takeaways. With the frequent use of emails and text messages in the workplace, the lack of facial expression and body language means more emphasis on how words and sentences are structured. With a better understanding on sentence structuring, I am now able to more effectively convey my message across with the right “mood”.

The ability to communicate properly is very important not only at work, but everywhere. I highly recommend this module to anyone and everyone as learning to communicate properly is not an academic skill, its a life skill.

Mapletree Forum Reflection

The event hit close to home for me. I was once an entrepreneur, having my own retail shop and running my own business. Sadly, my entrepreneur days did not last long. I was not careful and have no choice but to shut it down after 2 years.

The speakers spoke about the key to success. Passion, the fire that kept them going on infinitely regardless of all the failures they encountered. I agree with them, however only to a certain extent. I strongly feel that passion does not guarantee success from my personal experience. Passion only motivates action and action will produce results. However, there is no guarantee that the results will be positive. What is the definition of success? Let us look at KFC, famous in the whole world for it’s fried chicken. Colonel Sanders only become successful at the age of 73. His passion undying, finally bears fruit. He kept going for almost 50 years. 50 years of passion. My question is, would you call that a success? I wouldn’t.

This brings me to my second thought, how big a part do you think luck plays? I believe that there are lots of entrepreneurs out there who have very positive mindset and undying passion. However they still did not make it. I know people who have tried again and again and yet the odds are always against them. They did not give up, they just could not afford to try anymore. It is especially true in Singapore as resources and space are very expensive here.

All 4 of the speakers have at least a degree of some sort and Mr Shamir mentioned that education plays a part in helping him make decisions and the ability to react appropriately when the situation arises. I believed that is very untrue. Maybe education does help but I would say only to a very small extent. Mr Shamir has a degree in the Biochemistry field and he owns a company that deals with IT software. That already speaks for itself that education has nothing to do with entrepreneurship.

I do agree with them that entrepreneurship is not for everybody. However, my perspective on this is due to different people have different lives. In my opinion, successful entrepreneurship depends on the individual’s upbringing, mindset, experiences in life, passion and most importantly luck. Of course, there must also be a market for the the product that you have.

To conclude, the forum did provide useful insights on entrepreneurship, the speakers have great aptitude and passion for what they are doing, however I feel that they are holding back on vital personal experiences or “trade secrets” as they call it which led to some of their answers being vague and general.

Evaluative Summary

A blog, “Waste Disposal in Singapore”, by Yong, Chelsea (2018), explores the infrastructure of waste disposal in Singapore. The aim of the article is to create awareness for the general masses about responsible waste disposal.

According to the blog, construction debris contributes to the majority of total waste generated. Amount of total waste generated over the years is on the rise as well. The blog states that landfill is one of the main disposal methods. Construction debris which cannot be incinerated can only be disposed into the landfill. The blog claims that the landfill is estimated to become full in the year 2035.

Yong claims to be a year 2 undergraduate in Nanyang Technological University majoring in Psychology. The topic of waste disposal is apparently not her expertise, however, according to the references she cited in the blog, it would seem that she had done extensive research relative to the topic. The blog is a compilation of her research on the topic from books, websites from the government agencies and news articles from mainstream media. Most of the research materials are from recent years which is vital to the relevance and accuracy of the figures stated in the blog. Enough evidence is provided through pictures and videos to prove the statistical claims. The author also includes her own opinions.

To conclude, the blog is a reliable source for the topic on waste disposal and I recommend browsing through the references the author has cited for more detail information on the topic.

249 Words

References

Yong, Chelsea (2018). Waste Disposal in Singapore. Oh, What a waste!
Retrieved from https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/hp3203-2018-33/fact-sheet-of-waste-disposal/

Reader Response Draft #3

In the article, “Boy Genius Boyan Slat’s Giant Ocean Machine Is Real”, Schiller (2017) explores the potential of an ocean cleaning initiative envisioned by Slat. According to the article, the discovery of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch by Charles Moore in 1997 led to Slat starting development of the machine in 2011. The article states that Slat’s design functions as colossal floating booms that will gather waste which will allow for convenient disposal. He also made significant improvements to the design in hopes of increasing efficiency and reducing cost. The article also claims that a prototype that is funded by various entities will be undergoing testing soon. A failed prototype had provided insights on how Slat can improve his design. Slat claims to have done extensive research on the Patch and estimated tons of waste to be cleaned annually. Slat’s long term plans include recycling the plastic waste into useful products and for more companies to invest in the project.

Although the concept of the ocean cleanup machine is commendable, however the article fails to highlight the measures taken to ensure marine lifeforms safety.

Firstly, Slat should have touched on how the introduction of these colossal floating booms will affect the marine lifeforms. Based on the webpage, The Ocean Cleanup (2019), they claim that safeguarding the environment is their sole purpose, however the lack of clarity on this subject feels like hypocrisy. The article, “Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic: The Guardian” (2018), states that the machine is able to collect plastic as intended but has failed to retain the plastic for disposal. Since it is in their best interest to safeguard the ocean, they should also provide insights on the possible risks the machine will have towards marine lifeforms since the machine has failed to perform as intended.

This brings me to my second point. Slat claims to have done extensive simulations and research on the garbage patch but fails to highlight whether any research is done on marine life activities in the area. According to the webpage, The Ocean Cleanup (2019), an independent consultancy has identified multiple possible environmental impacts where only 1 carries medium risk. The results may seem plausible, however according to Goldstein(2018), the assessment is not sufficient and did not seriously take into account endangered animals or animals that live on the surface of the sea. It would seem Slat and his team are only interested in clearing the patch with little considerations for marine life. This assessment seemed to only serve as a formality to appease the masses. Slat should have done a detailed assessment taking all important species into account for he has a responsibility towards these marine lifeforms.

Lastly, Slat should ensure that more clarity and plannings are provided towards marine lifeforms safety. According to Slat (2018), he reports that there is no interactions with marine lifeforms yet and goes on about how his team will improve the machine and finding solutions. It is not mentioned how they will handle a possible event of a marine life-form encounter. Ultimately, their goal is to cleanse the ocean for a better natural ecosystem which directly impacts the marine lifeforms. With so many unknown factors during the testing phase, it is crucial that contingency plans are in place and detailed assessments are conducted. With more care shown towards marine lifeforms safety, this will further reinforce the team’s beliefs in protecting the natural environment which can lead to more investors and supporters for the project.

Although the idea to cleanse the ocean of plastic waste is noble, however the lack of considerations for the marine lifeforms is irresponsible. They should implement contingency plans and conduct extensive research to ensure the safety of marine lifeforms in the area.

625 words

References

The Guardian (2018). Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/20/great-pacific-garbage-patch-20m-cleanup-fails-to-collect-plastic

Goldstein, Miriam (2018). Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/20/great-pacific-garbage-patch-20m-cleanup-fails-to-collect-plastic

The Ocean Cleanup (2019). Technology.
Retrieved from https://www.theoceancleanup.com/technology/

The Ocean Cleanup (2019). Wilson Update – Tweaking the System.
Retrieved from https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/wilson-update-tweaking-the-system/

Reader’s Response Draft #2

In the article, “Boy Genius Boyan Slat’s Giant Ocean Machine Is Real”, Schiller (2017) explores the potential of a huge ocean cleaning initiative envisioned by Slat. According to the article, the discovery of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch by Charles Moore in 1997 led to Slat starting development of the Ocean Cleanup machine in 2011. The article states that Slat’s design functions as colossal floating booms that will entrap and gather waste which will allow for convenient disposal. He also made significant improvements to the design in hopes of increasing efficiency, reducing cost, saving time and effort. The article also claims that a prototype is entering the testing phase and how the project is funded by various companies and individuals. A former failed prototype had provided insights on how Slat can improve on his design. Slat claims to have done extensive research on the Patch and estimated tons of waste to be cleaned annually. Schiller learns about Slat’s long term plans during a conversation in which Slate hopes to recycle the plastic waste into useful products and for more companies to invest in the project.

Although the concept of the ocean cleanup machine is commendable, however the article fails to highlight if it is also capable of trapping marine life, such as fish or dolphins.

Firstly, Slat should have touched on how the introduction of these colossal floating booms will affect the marine lifeforms. Based on the official webpage, “Safeguarding Sealife: The Ocean Cleanup”(2019), they claim that “Protecting the natural environment is at the heart of what we do”, however the lack of clarity on this subject feels like hypocrisy. In my opinion, since it is in their best interest to protect and preserve the ocean, they should provide insights on the positive impact and possible risks the machine will have towards marine lifeforms. The article, “Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic: The Guardian”(2018), states that the machine is able to collect plastic as intended but has failed to retain the plastic for disposal. If the machine has failed to perform as intended, who is to say that the machine will not trap marine lifeforms?

This brings me to my second point. Slat claims to have done extensive simulations and research on the garbage patch but fails to highlight whether any research is done on marine life activities and patterns in the area. It would seem he and his team are only interested in clearing the patch with little considerations for marine life. Based on the official webpage, “Environmental Impact Assessment Available: The Ocean Cleanup”(2019), an independent consultancy identifies 29 possible environmental impacts where only 1 carries medium risk with the rest considered small or negligible. The results may seem plausible, however according to Goldstein(2018), the assessment is not sufficient and did not seriously take into account endangered animals or animals that live on the surface of the sea. In my opinion, this assessment only serves as a formality to appease the general masses and possibly investors. Slat should have done a very detailed assessment taking all important species and risks into account for he has a responsibility towards these marine lifeforms.

Lastly, Slat should ensure that more clarity and plannings are provided towards marine lifeforms safety. Ultimately, their goal is to cleanse the ocean for a better natural ecosystem which directly impacts the marine lifeforms. According to Slat (2018, November), he reports that there is no interactions with marine lifeforms yet and goes on about how his team will improve the machine and finding solutions. It is not mentioned how they will handle a possible event of a marine life-form encounter. With so many unknown factors during the testing phase, I feel it is especially crucial that contingency plans are in place and detailed assessments are conducted. With more care and planning shown towards marine lifeforms safety, this will further reinforce the team’s beliefs in protecting the natural environment which can lead to more potential investors and supporters for the project.

704 words

References

The Guardian (2018). Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/20/great-pacific-garbage-patch-20m-cleanup-fails-to-collect-plastic

Goldstein (2018). Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/20/great-pacific-garbage-patch-20m-cleanup-fails-to-collect-plastic

The Ocean Cleanup (2019). Safeguarding Sealife.
Retrieved from https://www.theoceancleanup.com/technology/

Slat (2018, November). Wilson Update – Tweaking the System.
Retrieved from https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/wilson-update-tweaking-the-system/

Reader Response Draft #1

Although the concept of the ocean cleanup machine is commendable, however the article fails to highlight if it is also capable of trapping marine life, such as fish or dolphins.

Firstly, Slat should have touched on how the introduction of these colossal floating booms will affect the marine lifeforms. Based on the official webpage of the ocean cleanup project, they claim that “Protecting the natural environment is at the heart of what we do”, however the lack of clarity on this subject feels like hypocrisy. In my opinion, since it is in their best interest to protect and preserve the ocean, they could have provide insights on the positive impact and possible risks the machine will have towards marine lifeforms. The article, “Great Pacific garbage patch $20m cleanup fails to collect plastic: The Guardian”(2018), states that the machine is able to collect plastic as intended but has failed to retain the plastic for disposal. If the machine has failed to perform as intended, who is to say the machine is not capable of trapping marine lifeforms?

This brings me to my second point. Slat claims to have done extensive simulations and research on the garbage patch but fails to highlight whether any research is done on marine life activities and patterns in the area. It would seem he and his team are only interested in clearing the patch with little considerations for marine life. Based on the official webpage again, an independent consultancy identifies 29 possible environmental impacts where only 1 carries medium risk with the rest considered small or negligible. The results may seem plausible, however according to Goldstein(2018), the assessment is not sufficient and did not seriously take into account endangered animals or animals that live on the surface of the sea. In my opinion, this assessment only serves as a formality to appease the general masses and possibly investors. Slat should have done a very detailed assessment taking all important species and risks into account for he has a responsibility towards these marine lifeforms.

Lastly, Slat should ensure that more clarity and plannings are provided towards marine lifeforms safety. Ultimately, their goal is to cleanse the ocean for a better natural ecosystem which directly impacts the marine lifeforms. According to the official webpage, they claim that there is no interactions with marine lifeforms yet and goes on about how they will improve the machine and finding solutions. It is not mentioned how they will handle a possible event of marine lifeforms approaching the machine. With so many unknown factors especially in the testing phase, I feel it is especially crucial that contingency plans are in place and detailed assessments are conducted. With more care and planning shown towards marine lifeforms safety, this will further reinforce the team’s beliefs in protecting the natural environment which can lead to more potential investors and supporters for the project.

703 words

Summary + Thesis

Although the concept of the ocean cleanup machine is commendable, however the article fails to highlight if it is also capable of trapping marine life, such as fish or dolphins.

Summary Draft #2

185 words

Updated 29 January 2019

Summary Draft #1

In the article “Boy Genius Boyan Slat’s Giant Ocean Machine Is Real”, Schiller (2017) explores the potential of a huge ocean cleaning initiative envisioned by young prodigy, Slat. According to the article, in 1997, oceanographer Charles Moore uncovered the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” which consist of accumulated plastic waste due to human activities. In response to this issue of environmental degradation, 17 years old Slat (2011) imagined a future possibility of a “Ocean Cleanup machine” to clean up the “Patch”. Slat (2017) had made a formal statement to start this endeavor in 2018. The article states that Slat’s design functions as colossal floating “booms” that will entrap and gather waste which will allow for convenient disposal by boat at regular intervals. He also made significant changes to the design in hopes of increasing efficiency, reducing cost, saving time and effort. The article also mentions a prototype testing later in the year and how the project is funded by various companies and individuals. A former failed prototype had also provided insights on how Slat can improve on his design. Slat claims to have done extensive research on the “Patch” and estimated a clean up rate of “tens of thousands of tons” of waste per annum. Schiller learns about Slat’s long term plans during a conversation in which he(Slat) hopes to recycle the plastic waste into useful products and for more companies to invest in the clean up project.

237 words

Self-Introduction Letter

Dear Ms Gan,

I am Chew Hong Xiang, currently a Year 1 student enrolled in the Civil Engineering degree course in the Singapore Institute of Technology(SIT). I would like to take this opportunity to give a brief introduction about myself and with regard to this module – Effective Communications.

I graduated from Nanyang Polytechnic with a Diploma in Engineering Informatics. The course was more about IT and barely touched on the engineering aspect. I didn’t further my studies after graduating, opting instead to enter the workforce. I had several jobs related to sales and customer service, therefore I was able to polish up on my communication skills under different circumstances. I am currently working in my dad’s company, a contractor in the construction line. In order to assist my dad further as a professional and of course, as a self upgrade, I have decided to take up the Civil Engineering degree course under the Work Study Program scheme offered by SIT.

Possible problems I may face for this module will be the inability to express myself clearly through speaking under circumstances. I will, at times, find myself unable to describe whatever that I had in mind which resulted in misunderstandings from different people. I had to make use of examples and analogies to provide clarity. This could be due to my weak grasp of vocabulary, therefore I prefer to type than to speak as I have the time to process and present something with clarity.

I am however, confident in speaking to the masses or in general – people. Due to the many years in the field of customer services, self study and researching, I have developed a decent set of communication skills which I use in my daily life. I strongly believe in the importance of having good communication skills as it is the foundation for forming good relationships and solving conflicts.

To conclude, I look forward to having a pleasant trimester under your guidance in this module, Ms Gan. Thank you for your time to go through this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Chew Hong Xiang

Updated 24 Jan 2019