"If you or your loved ones are stricken with an illness and your only hope of being cured is therapeutic cloning, will you go for it? Why?"

Yes, I will encourage my loved ones or even myself to go for it. To live or to die, one has to choose either one. If one chooses to live, one has to definitely choose therapeutic cloning since this is the only hope to be cured.

Personally, I feel that therapeutic cloning is not so terrifying. It just involves duplicating a healthy copy of a sick person's tissues or organ for transplant. The damages therapeutic cloning inflict is not as serious as that of human cloning. It does not really go against human rights since it is just a stem cell research.

If one chooses to live, he has to forgone certain things. One example is one's religion. If one is a strong Catholic believer, he has to weigh the benefits and disadvantages that therapeutic cloning can give and cause. Note: Catholicism are against therapeutic cloning.

But for me, I will ask :"Why give up your life just to hold on to your belief (religion)? Shouldn't one be flexible?"

I am fortunate. My religion is Budddhism and Buddhism supports therapeutic cloning. Though embryonic stem-cell research is a murder in the eyes of Buddhiists, that only applies to destroying 'excess' embryos. However, if the research is conducted on already-aborted embryos with the good intention of finding cures for diseases, it is permissible. In other words, to what extent Buddhism supports therapeutic cloning, mainly depends on the doer's intention. Since me or my loved ones are stricken with illness and that our only hope of being cured is therapeutic cloning, and that our religion, Buddhism, supports this type of cloning, we will therefore go for it.

Another reason for my advocation is that Singapore itself, supports therapeutic cloning. The benefits of therapeutic cloning is that the stem cells can be turn into nerve cells, heart-muscle cells, pancreas cell, blood cells and so on. It is hoped that these cells can be used to repair and renew activities of the damaged parts of the human body such as diseased brains, severed spinal cords, torn nerves or defective hearts. Thus since therapeutic cloning can bring about such great benefits to the suffering or sick people, and can advance science into a new era, I see no reason in not supporting therapeutic cloning.

There are no doubts that therapeutic cloning may cause conflicts to arise. UN has already banned this type of cloning using human embryos. However there are still countries like USA which totally ban both therapeutic and human cloning and strongly emphasize on total ban on both the latter clonings. This is because they consider embyos as human and feel that these embryos deserve respect. They claim that pro-lifers ignore the pain of the living for the sake of some embryo. Moreover, there are come religions like Catholicism and Protestantism which do not support cloning. The followers of these religion commented that therapeutic cloning which involves embryonic stem-cell research - like abortion, which requires the culling of embyros - is morally unacceptable.

Richard Nicholson of the British Bulletin of Medical Ethics has once said that cloning research may well be ‘sowing the seeds of our destruction.’ I disagree with his statement. Till now, there is no concrete evidence of the tremendous harm therapeutic cloning using stem cells can inflict.

Therefore, if me or my loved ones are stricken with an illness and my only hope of being cured is therapeutic cloning, I will still go for it.

Would you buy products that contain GM foods for consumption by your family? Why or why not?

Yes, I will still buy products that contain GM foods for consumption by my family members.

Again, as mentioned in the earlier blog, there are many potential benefits in a consumer perspective. Medicines and vaccines are costly to produce. With edible vaccines developed in tomatoes and potatoes, these vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines. This means that we can get our vaccines for certain disesses much easier and cheaper.

GM crops are herbicide and insect resistant. This means that the food we eat are safer and will most probably not contain anymore pesticides or herbicides that will endanger our health and lives. We will also not find any insects wriggling out from the fruits that will disgust us and make us puke. Therefore GM foods provide another alternative to people who are more health conscious.

Most importantly, my family has been eating GM food for the past few years and we are still fit and well. Though there are articles that say that toxins are found in mice after eating GM potatoes, to replace human beings with mices is not a very good or reliable method iin proving whether GM food is harmful. However, if we have to use laboratory animals as gauges, there are still experiments that can prove that GM food have no harmful effects. One example is the experiment on the GM peas where the nutritional value of diets containing GM peas expressing bean alpha-amylase inhibitor when fed to rats for ten days at two different (30% or 60%) dietary inclusions, was shown to be similar to that of parent-line peas. Thus this shows that GM foods are safe and hence its product should be safe.

Therefore, I will still buy the products that contain GM foods for consumption by my family due to the above reasons.

As one of the country's decision makers, would you advocate the use of GM crops? Why or why not?

Yes, I will support the use of GM crops.

As consumers, we will tend to benefit. Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions which may not be readily available in third world countries. If edible vaccines are developed in tomatoes and potatoes, the vaccines will be much easier to ship, store, and administer than traditional injectable vaccines. One example is the GM rice plants where they can produce the hepatitis antibody, which can be used to produce immunity to the virus(as reported by The Daily Yomiuri). As rice is a necessity to Asians, the production of GM rice can help reduce the costs of producing medicine or vaccines. The money which is to be used in production of medicines initially can then be channelled and used in other areas.

In religious point of view, GM crops are halal. This has been determined by the Islamic Jurisprudence Council (IJC). Though there is still discussion about the position of crops into which DNA from forbidden foods has been incorporated, all biotechnology derived foods on the market are from approved sources. The IJC position is supported by the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA), and the IFANCA certification is accepted by Islamic organisations in Indonesia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. So, for Muslims, they should have no fear for any GM food. As for other religions, use of GM foods may not be a big problem. Since the Buddhist, Hindus and Sikh support stem cell research, they should also be advocating GM food, which is also a product of ES cell research.

Moreover, if I am one of the decision maker in a third country, I will definitely support the use of GM crops because one of the major problem that I as a decision maker must solve is malnutrition. Since GM food can produce greater yield, which means that farmers can produce more fom the same area of land, and also provide certain vitamins that my people lack, I see no reason in not supporting GM food. Furthermore, GM crops are herbicide tolerant and insect resistant. They can offer farmers simpler control of otherwise difficult to control related weeds and huge environmental benefits as farmers move to low or zero ploughing. This protects soil biodiversity, helps reduce energy use and CO2 emissions.

Though there are debates that GM crops are harmful to human health such that they can cause allergenicity and other unknown effects, the benifits of GM crops are a wholesome that as a decision maker in the counrty, I will not resist the use of GM food.

What are your views on abortion?

Abortion is the deliberate bringing to an end of a human pregnancy. Many people see aborton as a sin which cannot be condone as abortion is more than murdering someone. Abortion is like taking a helpless life away, even before the foetus can survive on its own. However, generally, I am not against abortion.

There are several reasons behind my stand. Firstly, we must know that normal human beings have conscience. They know how to think. They know what is right and wrong and what is good and bad for them. As abortion is a serious matter, it is important to think over and over again on whether their decisions made is correct. Human beings have feelings. No one will like to kill their own children. It must have been something big or serious that force them to do so. Since abortion is the most inhumane way of killing someone, the sense of guilt they feel before or after abortion has already shown us that they have conscience. Imagine a woman who is in the operating theatre, going to abort the foetus. Just as the surgeon is going to anaesthetize her, she jumps out from the bed and decides not to abort the foetus. This could have shown that she has struggled a lot before coming to this decision. I will not be against her even if she later on decides or that her final decision is to abort the foetus. Thus i am not against abortion as normal human beings must have think from all aspects before they can come up upon this decision.

Social factor is another reason. In United States of America, bearing a child before one is married and raising it single-handedly is nothing big to fuss about. However this may not be the case in certain countries. Having a child before one is married is condemned in certain countries, especially conservative ones. One will be looked down by her other villagers if they know that she is pregnant before she is married. They will tend to classify her as an unfaithful person, giving away her chastity before her nuptical. This problem can be resloved if the man and the pregnant lady proceeds with their wedding. However, if the woman is pregnant and that she cannot finds the man or that the man had run away without bearing any responsibility, in that conservative society of hers, the best choice may be to abort the child. If this child is being born to earth, he will have to face the humiliation due to his mother's deed. Why let a child suffer for what the adults did?

Looking into other cases like pregnation due to rape, abortion may be the best choice. This life will only serve as a reminder of the ordeal and torment. If the life is to be shown no love, then why should it be born? Should it be born to suffer?

Lastly, economic factor is one of my reasons why i am not against abortion. In exterme cases like poverty, I may recommend abortion as it frees one from an extra financial burden. If one cannot feed herself, how is she able to feed her child? In Africa, many mothers still bore their children despite of poverty. However, poverty can kill a child even before he reaches the age of six. You watch him live till his bones are going to protrude out of his meat, and then watch him die. Is it fun to see him suffer like this? Again, is it fun to let him suffer with you? One may think of sending the child for adoption but why should one bore him if one does not want to foot the responsibility as a mother? What rights have one got to let the child suffer in agony later on if he knows he is being abandoned?

However in some cases or situations, i think that abortion is not a solution. For Roman Catholics, because of religious purposes, abortion is advised against. They believe that abortion is taking away part of God's creation. If a Roman Catholic aborts her child, she is deemed as disrespecting God or defying God's order. She will be chastised by her priest. Perhaps in this case, what she can do is to send her child away for adoption.

In another case where one has the financial ability to raise a child but wants to abort it just for the reason of unplanned pregnancy, I will think that abortion is not a very good solution to the problem. Is unplanned pregnancy something big enough to force one to go for abortion? One is not in extreme cases like poverty. Moreover, one has the financial ability to bring a child up. Worse still, if one has the financial ability to buy a car or to raise a pet, why not a child?

In conclusion, i am not really against abortion as i feel that the idea of abortion depends on the situations one faces. Most importantly, no matter what the choices are, it still lies in the hands of the mother.

"In the modern world, image is everything." Discuss.

Image is the representation of an object or a person. It is the first thing others can see on one. Image is like beauty, the outer beauty that people see on one. It is subjective. Especially in the modern world, how one perceives another is usually due to the image one portrays. Thus I agree that in the modern world, image is everything to a big extent.

Image can help one to judge a person. It presents what kind of person oneself is. As we know, 'first impression lasts'. People usually measure one by his image. How well one presents oneself can leave an everlasting effect or impression to another. For example, if one goes for an interview sloppily, with unkempt hair and shirt all creased up, his boss will have a bad impression on him. He may think that that person is lazy and untidy and hence, his work wil also be as messy as him. In the end, he probably may not get into the next round of interview and perhaps, a high probability of not being appointed a post.

Image can affect one's choice. When people look at things, it is natural that they always start by looking at the package, at how the object is presented to them. Usually, when we buy a gift for someone, we will see whether the object is pretty before thinking whether it is useful or not. This has already shown that image is a deciding factor to one's choice. Another example is the size of the person. In the modern world today, beanpole woman is seen as intelligent while plump women are often discriminated as they are viewed to be less intelligent than average. Thus slim woman tend to get a higher chance of a better job than plump women. In work or interview, these scenarios can often be seen. Thus most people perceive slimness as a way to be accepted and obesity as a stigma in society. Hence this shows that image affects one's choice.

So why in olden days, image may not be everything? Perhaps people then believe more in one's capabilities than image(though we cannot dey that during Victorian times, plumpness is viewed as attractive). People then were poorer and more practical. They know that one's intelligence is shown through one's hardwork and capabilities, not just through image. In the long Chinese drama serial 'Walking Out", it showed that though those so-called 'bao fa hu' (people who stroke rich just by selling land left to them by their ancestors) stroke rich by selling land, changing their image and identity immediately, it was not until a while that they had spent away every dollars and cents which can last their descendents for decades, hence changing their identity and image back to one again. This shows that how good one's image is, is not everything in those days. Probably to them, hardwork is then everything.

Though image is everything in the modern world, we cannot judge a book by its cover. Image is no quality in things themselves. It merely exists in the mind which contemplates them. Image is the outer beauty one can see, but it may not reflect the inner beauty of the person. In other words, what is out may not be what is within us. This is because looks can be deceiving. A person who is beautiful may not be that clever than a person with an average look but is brainy. Hence lesser emphasis should be place on image.

Nevertheless, image is everything to a big extent in this modern world. Superficial as image can be, it usually helps one to judge others, affects one's choice and can also in turn affect relationships between people.

"There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests."Comment.

I do not agree with this statement. Friendship is made not because for one's interest. We make friends because we want to find a person to share happiness with us or to talk to whenever we have any sorrows. We make friends to reflect upon ourselves, to find the real soul in us.

I disagree that there are no permanent friends in our life. Though friends may be just passer-bys in our life route, they are the ones who have great impacts on us. They bring us joy and laughter, sorrows and sadness, most, in our everday's life. Have you ever been teased by your friends?Or have your friends ever told you a joke that made you laugh till you face went red? Whether the answer is yes or no, it does not make a difference because whatever memories we have with them will forever be etched in our minds. They will thus be our 'permanent' friends. There are still certain cases where there are really permanent friends that walk one along the life. Our parents and siblings, are life examples. They have been with us since our births.Usually we will say out or tell our troubles to our kin ones and they will always be the ones there to support us. Furthermore, with their guidance we can at all times reflect upon our actions. From the above examples, our kin ones can already be seen as friends to us.

I, myself, have one example. I am still in contact with my primary school friends and teachers. They have since been one of my support holding me on till now. Whatever great or sad things I have, I will tell them and ask for opinions and suggestions, vice versa. I would rather say that they are my permanent friends, friends that are worthy of, than to say that our friendship is due to each other's permanent interest that we are able to earn from.

I have no doubts that some people make friends for one's permanent interest. They use friends to gain votes for sympathy, or even their friends' innocence to sabotage others. However, how long can one make friends for permanent gains? Friends pass by and go every now and then. No matter how many friends one makes, will one be able to gain any permanent interests from each friend? Perhaps, permanent interests in this lifetime, yes. But when these friends know that one is using them for interest sake while they treated him as a true friend, he will then get neither permanent interests nor permanent friends in his lifetime. Therefore, in such cases, I feel that these people will get either temporary interests or no interest.

Amazingly, in other cases, these so-called friends made use of each other to gain interests. However they can still be friends for life. Though they can attain both permanent friends and interests, their friendship may be fake.

Friendship is pure when we treat each other truefully and think nothing about interests. Though I feel that friendship should not be made for one's interest, there are still people in the world who think that friends should be made use of. What I can say is when one is trueful to another friend, one is then worthy enough to be another's friend. Don't you think so?

Should the education system allow exceptionally bright students to skip grades?

I refer to DR Lee Siew Peng's letter, 'Bringing Up Child Pridogies Good reasons not to allow grade-skipping' (ST, SEPT 25).

I agree most with what DR Lee said. I feel that students or children should be given the freedom to develop laterally rather than accelerate through the grades. If the student has potential, it is important to groom him. However, being just a child, wouldn't it be too cruel to deprive him of his childhood or teenagehood, by skipping grades and answering tougher questions than what suits his age, when other students are enjoying themselves at his age? Would you confirm that he will get a good job or excel extremely well in future? Moreover, though the child has high IQ, he may be weaker in certain aspects, like for example, social skills, which DR Lee's child lacks, as mentioned in the letter.

Therefore it is important to engage the child in an all-rounded development. Though we should allow those high IQ students progress at their own pace, I feel that these students should be held back from skipping grades and continue retaining at the level of education that suits their age. In this way, I think it may be better as parents will have little chance in pressurising their children too much in academic area. By mixing with other students of different IQ levels, these students will learn how to care and share for their peers rather than just thinking of competing with other high IQ students. They are able to be exposed to different environments instead of mainly the academic area. For example, someone of lower IQ may be better than this higher IQ child in swimming. This may be able to inspire and motivate the higher IQ child to excel well in sports too, hence diversifying the interests of the child. In this way he can be all-rounded and better-developed in both the academic and sports areas in the normal education system, instead of just focusing on academic area in the 'grade-skipping' system.

Some very high IQ children may be weaker in certian aspects or skills. Those skills which the child lacks should instead be polished up during their growing period. By skipping grades, it means that these children may have to leave these skills unattended or unpolished until when they step into the society later on, as they have to focus on their studies most of the time (childhood & teenagehood). Not learning these skills will be a disadvantage to them. So what if they are brilliant but have no sense of social ettiqutte? They will still be looked down upon. It is usually easier to teach the correct manner and lead one into the correct direction when one is young. By allowing one's child to skip grades, it may just show that the parents are more concern over results than moral values. These students may one day be influenced by their parents, thinking that achieving good results is the most important thing, compared to other subjects like moral values, in life. No doubt that some very high IQ students are more mature as mentioned in MDM Lee Ee Sa's letter, 'Yes, let precocious kids proceed at faster pace' (ST, SEPT 25). But will all very high IQ kids be as sensible or also have very high EQ?

I agree that in the past, students were allowed to skip grades. During my primary school period, one of my classmates was allowed to skip grade or change stream to go into the Gifted Elective Programme (GEP). However she rejected both and stayed on with us. In the end she still got 4A* in PSLE and all 'A's in 'O' levels. Moreover she excels well in sports and arts too. This shows that one does not need to skip grades to accelerate well in grades and other arenas. in rebutt to Mr Thomas Anthony (ST, SEPT 25).

In short it is better to let them develop on their own instead of developing these high IQ students through skipping grades. If the parents really think their children are highly intellectual, more advanced than their peers and can do it, perhaps the extreme I think they can go is to send them to the Gifted Elective Programme (GEP) where the children will still be able to work on challenging questions that can intrigue them.

Should marriage be a legal contract between individuals or a non-binding relationship based on love? Why?

Being single does not mean one is lonely. Being single may be due to the hectic schedule one faces everyday. These singles may be too busy with their work that they hardly have any time to socialize. However, not all singles are socially disadvantaged. By maintaining a single status, one has a little more freedom compared to those who are married. For example, singles have less restrictions in making friends.

Responding to the 5-day work week, singles now can spend more time socializing. Through dancing lessons, pubbing or perhaps through 'Find your soul', a matchmaking programme held by MCDS, singles can be more socially enriched.

Most singles will not have any financial problems. Due to the savings they accumulated over the years in the working society, it is enough to support themselves for a few years. Probably, this may only affect those singles who have just stepped into the working society.

Married couples does not necessarily mean they are more lonely than singles. They can also find time for themselves despite their hectic schedule. They can still engage in activities enjoyed by youngsters and singles even after they are married. For those who have children, they can put their children in the care of their parents' hands during certain weekends when they want to have their personal time together. However, though married couples can also be active by engaging themselves in enriching and exciting programmes they could have enjoyed before they were married, their social lives will somehow be restricted. This is because, for a person who is married and especially for one who has children, he or she will need to commit more time with his or her family members.

Whether married couples have more savings than singles will depend on how much assets they got and whether they have any children. For example, if a couple stays in a condomedium, we can be sure that they may be earning high salaries. But having to pay for all the installments, their savings will be greatly reduced. Moreover, if they have a child, their savings will definitely be lesser than before as expenses like education, food and clothing, spent on the child will be very big. This is different for singles. Most singles tend to live with their parents. Expenses that elderly spent will be much less than a child. And if we assume that the salary the single receives similarises the amount receive by the married couples, tha savings the single has will be much more.

Frankly speaking, the legal contract does not ensure that people stay married. As long as people think their marriage is beyond saving, this legal contract can be broken by signing a legal seperation contract. Though one straits time article(ST, 26 June) states that women were more reluctant to file for divorce, and couples here seems more likely to hang on to a troubled marriage tha Westerners, another article (ST, 5 July) contradicts it by having a comment which says that these days, people suscribe to the Western notion that if one is not happy, one should not hesitate to get a divorce.

Before the late 20th century, women had few economic opportunities. Men in the marriage would control most of the economic resources and custody were often granted to them. Many women found themslves tied to a marriage that gave them few rights and options within the marriage, and many obstacles to ending the marriage. Today, women have the right to ask fo divorce.Thanks to the liberised divorce law! Other than the change in law, women now are better off economically. They are able to support themselves. And because they are more likely to be beter off economically, they do not automatically lose custody of their children. Thus women are more ready to walk out of a failed marriage.

Today, more and more people view marriage as a non-binding relationship based on love. They feel that as long as they are in love with each other, it doesn't matter whether they are married. Human beings can be fickle minded when it comes to love. A person can be unfaithful to his or her partner even after a marriage. Thus there is no point staying in the marriage when one does not love another anymore. It will be very miserable for both paries to hang on just because of a legal contract.

To me, love does not last forever. People fall in and out of love everyday. Love is a mutual interdependence thing. Love between each other depends on how much one is willing to commit and sacrifice in this relationship. Perhaps, love can be everlasting but everlasting love is hard to achieve.

My views on advertisements

Advertisements are public notice about something. Through advertising, advertisers can pass the messages they want straight away. These can be done through a few sources like telivision, radio and internet, etc.

Advertisements normally work well due to a few points. The main point is its simplicity, As advertisements are mostly short and simple, consumers can easily comprehend them. Secondly is its marketing strategies. Advertisers will only display the good side of the product. Not many will like to display both sides of their product as this may send customers away. Thus only by displaying the good side of the product can advertisers attract consumers. Lastly, advertisements work well due to the promotions and reduced prices shown in the advertisements.One example is the Kenya Airflights. In order to increase the company's sales of air tickets, it provides a complementary package.For air tickets bought in this package, the airflight company will provide hotel accomodation at discounted prices for the consumers at their destination. Mesmerised by these attractions, people will flock down to the company or shops to buy the products. Moreover, there may be a time limit for these attractions. Thus people will have to act fast before the promotion ends.

However in some cases, it is neither a matter of time nor any attractions that hypnotised the consumers. The problem is with them. When there are advertisements of slimming centres or slimming pills, this group of people will feel inferior of their own bodies. They will feel that they are fat, but frankly speaking, they are fit. Thus in order to be come slimmer, these people will respond to the advertisements. Sometimes people may point out that this type of advertisement may be misleading. Yes they may be misleading but the main problem is their psychological problem. Have they overcome it?One example is the Slim 10 Case. In order to look better on screen, Andrea De Cruz ate the slimming pills despite having look slim.

For some companies, money spent in advertising may be worth it. Advertisement is likely to publicise the company's name and help promote its product. One example is RAINBOW, a shop which specialises in breeding and selling fishes. It has advertised itself such that it has made itself known in Singapore. However, whether the money spent on advertising is worth it may be greatly dependent on its sales after advertising. If sales is good, the company may be able to cover its costs. Total cost of advertisement will be able to spread over a large area. But in certain cases, sales cannot be used as a support of whether money spent on advertising is worth it. One example is the slim 10 case. Although the plls were selling hot then, health hazards from eating its pills were later identified. Slim 10's pills contain fenfluramine, a poison that was not listed on the list of ingredients. Those women who were healthy but took the pills for vanity, suffered liver failure and hypertension. this resulted in a battle of court cases. In the end the company, TV Media, that helped to advertise the product, was also sued and was asked to pay a huge amount of money to its plaintiff. At the end of the day the company had also made a loss.

Not all unsolicited advertisements should be banned. The term "unsolicited advertisement" means unrequested advertisement. if all unsolicited materials are banned, then we will not know where we can get product or food that are selling at the most cheap or economical price. However advertisements like the Slim 10 pills should be banned as it provides untrustworthy reports and evidence. For example, Chen Liping, the artise celebrity spokeman for the product, did not feel anything wrong after eating the pills for weeks. On the other hand, Andrea De Cruz suffered from liver damage after eating the pills. Hence unsolicited advertisements with false claims and that could harm the public should be banned.

I think the government should impose stricter laws on advertisements. For example, advertisements within the printed products cannot contain price ranges. This is to safeguard the accuracy of the information within the directory because those items are often subjected to change. Discount offers are acceptable if they are not in connect with a price and are stated in isolation. Cashback offers should also be restricted as such offers are quite complicated and may not be possible to fulfil and can also mislead users

What is one value or belief that you hold onto in life?

One value that I have been holding onto in life is to have confidence in everything I do. Confidence reflects one"s character. A person without confidence is least likely to succeed in life. This is because he is unable to overcome himself pychologically, let alone overcoming obstalcles that he will be facing. In a nutshell, I am trying to say that a person without confidence is most likely to fail in whatever he does.
 
Ignoring whether I have prepared and studied hard enough or not, I will always step into the examination hall confidently for every test and examination. With confidence, half the battle is won. For me, confidence drives determination.  It also gives me the support I need whenever I meet with problems e.g. a difficult examination question. Hence,  confidence makes me perservere to the end in whatever I do.
 
One good example to illustrate my belief is through this  song  "I believe I can fly" by R Kelly. This song is very meaningful as it tells us to believe, to be confident in whatever we do. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and then. Spread my wings and fly away. Basically, I rather like the chorus towards the end of the song. If anyone has noticed, it goes like this 'Cus I believe in me. If I can see it, I can do it. 
 
Therefore, having confidence in everything I do is one belief that I will continue holding onto in life. Without confidence, one's life will be dull.