who is responsible

On the 9^th of September 2013, a thirteen-year-old driver took the life of six people in a high-speed accident where he crashed into a road divider at the toll road hitting oncoming cars. Dhani, the father and the legal guardian of the underage child, should be held accountable for this devastating mishap.

It has been argued that Dul was responsible for he was the one driving the car, although his father should have been aware that his own son drives sometimes and that his personal driver was on holiday. He fully understood that Dul was a minor and was not emotionally stable yet (according to Standford studies) in which it was stated that “As people age, they’re more emotionally balanced and are better in the ability of solving highly emotional problems in limited time.” There is a reason why the legal driving age is in fact seventeen-years-old. The act of driving requires unbreakable concentration and fast reflexes, you should be aware of your own surroundings and at that moment, you’re responsible for the lives of people around you.

The opposing side has also dumped the blame on the toll driver because he/she was in charge of the gate that Dul went through and he/she didn’t do anything about it when it’s not actually his/her fault. Half the teenagers in Indonesia does look older than their actual age and it wasn’t his/her responsibility to look out for driving minors, he probably didn’t even know who Dul was! He was just doing his job. The father, however should have stopped Dul and his brothers because it was believed that Dul followed the example of his two brothers who were also underage and who the dad also bought cars they drove.

It was also a problem that Dhani was solely responsible in restricting his children and prevent bad influences from society, their way of life and that was all because his divorce with former wife did not end well. Apparently, his three children, Al, El, Dul, all had experiences with smoking and drugs and it was believed to be some sort of affected behavior from the divorce.

Dhani was wholly responsible for letting a minor drive a car that he purchased for his underage children. He should’ve been aware that his actions reflect to his sons behavior that was caused by the unmoral society he raised them 

the volupides mystery

To the chief of police,

When we arrived at the scene of crime at the private estate of the Volupides family located on the 4^th Avenue at 02:00 on the 24^th of August 1970, we were greeted by a body that was later identified as Arthur Volupides lying on his back, face up on the foot of the stairs with legs hanging on the third stair and Queenie, his wife, beside the body. A glass was still gripped in his hand and the stove was on. Arthur was dressed in formal and was wearing a robe on top.

Queenie said that, “Something terrible happened. Arthur slipped and fell on the stairs. He was coming down for another drink–he still had the glass in his hand–and I think he’s dead. Oh, my God–what shall I do? ”

The autopsy result of Arthur Volupides confirmed that Arthur had died from a wound and stated that he had been drunk.

We have concluded that Queenie’s story does not match the evidence that we have found.

First of all, the glass in his possession was not broken. When a person falls down, the object they’re holding usually breaks or the other possible outcome is that you usually let go of that object as a protective reflex. The second evidence we got was that the object on the wall was not misplaced. The rule is that when someone falls down they would usually try to grab hold of something nearby to prevent theirselves from falling. The staircase carpet was not messed up which was illogical because when someone falls down carpet covered stairs; the carpet usually would be rumpled because of the friction. The biggest lead we’ve got is that victim was found lying on the floor, face up, while usually when someone falls downstairs, they would fall face first and the paramedics that would usually be called when someone experiences an accident, were not present.

After seeing all of the evidence, we can say that Queenie’s was lying and she will need to be interrogated for further investigation. If she’s proved to be guilty we will continue investigating and bring it to court.

uniforms?

Have you ever wondered how it feels not to wear a school uniform to school? I know some are lucky not to use them, that’s for sure. But as an Indonesian, it's a very complex topic that's easily debatable.

I for one am against the use of uniform in schools. Why, you ask? Well, for one, you can express your identity when you use your own clothing. You’d certainly be more comfortable and people can really see who you really are. Sure, appearances don’t matter much but everyone has their own styles that would be reflected when they can use whatever they want. Appropriate, of course.

Not many would disagree on the statement that schools can easily increase the uniform prices and we wouldn’t know why. Wearing your own wardrobe would certainly result in less cost and people who can’t afford to go to school can look at school kids not wearing uniform and feel equality. Because in some cases, these kids that can’t go to school sees us in uniforms and may feel really depressed because they don’t have enough to be able to go to school, let alone buy a uniform.

We’d increase the school’s artistic side by indulging in our creativity and being colorful in what we wear. Clothes can reflect your feelings, like when you’re feeling down, most would wear black. When you’re feeling happy most would wear energetic, bright colors like pink or yellow, etc. This is not constant though, some people are happier with comfortable clothes like baggy pants and sweatshirts for no psychological reason and who are we to judge, right?

Parents would be concerned with the level of appropriateness of the child’s clothing as they are entitled to but if we wanted not to wear a uniform, we certainly would have created a policy segment that discusses the dress code rules on its own inside the student handbook everyone receives and should definitely follow.

“I want students to wear school uniforms because not wearing them results in no school identity!” Shouts one person.

Well I can’t really agree with you on that one, bud. Your uniform should not define you, you define your school uniform. Your behavior, your attitude, your respect. That defines your school. In addition to that, if you can conclude that no uniform means no school identity that means you’re insulting universities and colleges for no incoherent reason.

Look at them, for example. Even though they don't have uniforms, they’re united. And that's the whole point. Besides, if you’re worried that on trips you’d get separated with the group, a few schools has applied a wonderful strategy of making official school jackets, shirts, ribbons, bracelets, caps, it can be anything.

The wealthy and poor case that everyone takes intense notice of can also be avoided because most schools in Indonesia have economic standards that has to be fulfilled to be able to enroll to said school and that basically decreases the wealthy and poor range for we’re not that far of from each other. Almost equal.

The former statement can also explain the lack of jealousy that would occur in the certain school and the bullying levels would not be high, maybe not at all.

Based on the opinions and facts above, I don't see any problem with not using a uniform. I’d say that the advantages are worth more than the disadvantages that could easily be wriggled out of.

But everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. Tell me what you think!:)