The authors raise several reasons why they think people today need exercise. Do you agree with them? Justify your answer,

In the article, the authors state that exercise is a form of prevention from diseases caused by the lifestyle that we lead- that is, the consumption of junk food, practising unhealthy habits such as smoking and spending too much time doing things that do our health no good. Exercise is seen as a form of counter attack for diseases.

I agree with the authors that exercise is indeed a form of prevention against health problems. Studies have shown that an estimated 250,000 deaths each year occur due to lack of regular physical activity. When one exercises, he or she actually burns fats and thus reduces the risk of obesity. This will lower one’s chances of dying due to health related problems.

I also think that the authors’ point on over reliance on medicine is relevant. People in modern society are, more often than not, too reliable on advancements in medicine in terms of governing their lives. In the past, the only way to keep slim is to exercise. However, presently, we have slimming centres all over the globe. People thus make up of this advancement in the medical area to cut down on their weight. A large number of people also believe that medicine will cure all their problems. What they do not realise that one’s chances of getting cured is subjective, and not everyone who takes the medication will definitely get better; medicine does fail us at times.

Although all of the authors’ points are relevant, I think they are flawed in certain views. For instance, the authors focus largely on the claim that increasing exercise will lower one’s chance of getting ill. Exercise can indeed lower one’s chances of getting illnesses related to obesity, but there are many other illnesses in the world that may not be prevented through physical fitness. These include hereditary diseases such as heart problems and asthma. In this case, perhaps prolonged attempts to keep fit will worsen one’s condition.

Also, besides keeping one fit, exercise may also be used as a form of stress relief. In modern society, so many of us are caught up with our work that we have ‘stress build up’ within ourselves. This may be ‘released’ through the form of exercise. Research has shown that exercise does calm and relax one’s mind. This is essential in the corporate world to prevent mental breakdowns of high fliers who perhaps face a considerable amount of stress at work.

Therefore, I agree with most of the authors’ views on why we should exercise.

Given the problems that plague the Olympics, do you think that Modern Olympics has lost its purpose?

I feel that modern Olympics has long lost its purposes that were namely to maintain peace, bringing countries together and to celebrate the achievements of the human body. Modern Olympics are now held mainly for entertainment and economic purposes.

Political conflicts have in several cases, as pointed out in the articles, led to partial or complete failure of the Olympic game. Countries have been shown to threaten host cities through boycotting the games. Examples are that of French president’s threatening to boycott the opening of the Beijing Olympic game unless China opens up talks with the Dalai Lama and frees political leaders. This example shows how the Olympics has failed it purpose to bring countries closer together. Instead, it has become a medium for countries to retaliate at other countries or to voice out their disagreements.

Cases of sportsmen illegally taking drugs to boost their performances have gone against the Olympics’ purpose to celebrate the achievements of the human body. Many sports also require external equipment such as tennis, badminton, etc. The performances of these athletes are largely dependent on their equipment. These athletes have also become somewhat like guinea pigs for the sportswear companies to test out their new products. As a result, modern Olympics have indeed lost its purposes.

In modern days, hosts cities take up the task of hosting the Olympics games with hidden agendas, one of which is to boost the country’s economy. The immediate effect of hosting the Olympics would bring a huge boost to the country’s tourism economy. As the Olympics game is broadcasted all over the world and under close attention by everyone, it can also boost the country’s reputation, potentially increasing the investments from other countries. As a result, the Olympics game would have its main objective shifted to economic gains for the host countries. The games still act as mediums for countries to get together to compete in sporting events, allowing athletes all over the world to interact with each other. In this case, even though the Olympic has changed its focus, it still maintains its original purposes. Thus, modern Olympics may not have lost its purposes yet.

In conclusion, I feel that the modern Olympic games have indeed lost its purposes, or at least shifted its main objective in hosting the games due to the problems plaguing the Olympic games.

-Jia Hao

The Effectiveness of using Harsh methods when dealing with criminals

The use of "harsh methods" when dealing with criminals, in my opinion, is effective in most cases, but it is also wrong to say that it is always effective. In my opinion, each "criminal" is different, and therefore has to be dealt with in a different way from the other criminal. For example, a man who killed 2 men trying to rape his wife should not  be dealt with in the same way as a cannibal who killed and ate 2 people! What the US defines as "terrorists" should also not be immediately labeled a terrorist, and tortured, but rather proven to have hard links with the group in question, and then, can be "dealt with" in an appropriate way.

As highlighted by the first article, the most harsh way to torture one, is mentally. This type of torture will leave behind a very deep, but invisible wound on the person who has been tortured. Given that the CIA does not actually know that they have information that might be of value to them, meaning, the "terrorists" are only suspected to be terrorists, they should not be put through such torture before they are proven to actually be the terrorists that the US thinks they are torturing. Therefore, before "dealing" with the criminals, we first have to establish that they are criminals. In the use of harsh methods, I take a stand that it is justified. I feel that in terms of torture, if it is a life or death situation, then it is alright to get the necessary information from the suspect by any means necessary. This would mean that the lack of ability to obtain information will not be an excuse by the officials that they cannot save the hostages since they had no information.

Capital punishment, is a whole other story. The "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" approach is becoming dated, and increasingly impractical. As far as possible, people should be incapacitated for their crimes. This would allow them to be integrated back into society, and help to improve the world, make it a better place to live in. I feel that the  convicted criminals should be placed under "supervised" incapacitation, meaning that there is someone observing their progress. This person should be asked a report at the end of a trial period based on the crime and the situation, and recommend that the convicted be reintegrated into society or be put to death by the state.

This would be a far more effective way of dealing with criminals, since valuable resources are not wasted, and those that are not of use to society, but a harm to society, are killed.

Is The Usage Of Harsh Methods Moral?

Harsh methods, mainly psychological and physical torture, have been used for a long time to force information out of people with many even leading to deaths. For instance, national hero Lim Bo Seng, had been tortured to death by the Japanese soldiers in order to get information about Force 136. In places such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, torture is a tool still used by the military to deal with criminals and get information out of them. However, we must ask ourselves that if this practice is a morally correct or acceptable one In my opinion, it is only justified in certain situations and when dealing with certain criminals.

Torture is morally correct when it is used in situations were there are high stakes. For instance, in the case of a terrorist. In this case, harsh methods such as torture would be considered morally correct. This is so as the world or large numbers of people are at stake here. A terrorist may have information that can be vital in saving these people. For example, if the terrorist knows about plans by his/her organization for a plane hijack. To save these people and getting the information for this through torture is morally alright. Even if not large numbers of people are at stake, torture can be moral if it means saving a life.

However, I feel that the practice of torturing to get information should stick to the criminal himself. It is not right to torture people who are related to the criminals to get truths out of them or to serve as a threat to the criminals. This is not moral as the people have no relation to the crimes committed.

Harsh methods, I feel, are not moral in any other situation. Torture on crime suspects is not moral. If the crimes committed are small scale and stakes are low, torture should not be allowed. Moreover, if these people are suspects and not proven guilty yet, it is not morally right to torture him. Even in Guantanamo Bay, a large portion of the detainees who undergo harsh treatments are just suspects whom are speculated and not proven criminals. This is not right as many of them might actually be innocent and have nothing to reveal and might get tortured to death for no valid reason.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Torture has been used as a form of punishment since ancient times, in several well-known civilizations such as China, Rome and even modern America. In a bid to obtain crucial information, the authorities often resort to torture and break the victim’s mental spirit to make him or her confess reveal information. These torture methods are obviously morally wrong, but when pitted against the atrocities committed by some of these criminals, it becomes a debatable issue. As stated in article one, terrorists expect their capturers to kill them, and hence when presented a tough but humane face, they are confused. Some eventually give in to their capturers, providing them the information needed. On the other hand, when faced with torture, some criminals would still keep their mouths shut. This examples show that tortures are not justified; they may not be effective, and may also erase all chances of every getting the criminal to speak up through other methods.

However, in critical situations whereby a hostage’s life hangs in the balance, information is not only needed to be accurate, but also quickly. Every second counts. Obtaining the same information five minutes earlier and five minutes later could result in two extreme cases. In the former, the hostage may be saved alive and well; in the latter, the hostage dead. The authorities no longer have the luxury of patience and time to wait for the terrorist or criminal to decide whether or not to speak up. By instinct, the fastest way to force them to speak up is through torture. In these cases, then torture may perhaps be justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists.

The type of torture can also result in two extreme views towards this matter. If the torture brings pain unto the criminal without hurting or threatening others, the torture may seem justified. After all, the criminal is just getting his or her just deserts. However, if the torture requires holding the family of the criminal captive, or bringing suffering unto another person, then others may ask, what have they done to deserve such treatments? Such forms of torture would then be unjustified.

The question of whether torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists also depend on how one views the situation. Assuming one has a grudge with the criminal; he or she views the criminal with hatred, vengeance and cannot wait to see him or her punished for his crimes. To this particular person, torture towards this criminal may seem very justified, as compared to his inhumane atrocities. However, on the side of judges, who are required to hold an objective view of the matter, torture may seem too inhumane a punishment to carry out. Furthermore, while jail term may be measured in terms of time, how can torture be measured?

In conclusion, whether or not the use of torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists depends on the purpose of the torture, the time allowed, the types of torture and one’s own viewpoint towards the matter. In my opinion, if the torture is used under time pressing situations to extort information from the criminal and the torture methods used only brings suffering to the criminal, then torture towards this criminal is definitely justified.

-Jia Hao

Nandeeshwar's opinion on this question will be printed and handed in during the GP lesson on Monday.

Are you for or against the death penalty?

As far as i know, the death penalty has been around for a very long time, dating as far back as the middle ages. One would naturally assume that it is useful to some extent, since it is still being practiced.

As stated in article 1, the argument for the death penalty is that it serves as a deterrence for people with intentions of committing a serious crime. It is often argued that the death of this one criminal, and the existence of a death penalty would surely put some like- minded criminals off track. As quoted from David Hume in Article 1, "No one ever threw away life, while it was worth living. For such is our natural horror of death." I agree fully with him, for it only seems logical that one's life would be his or her most valued thing. Thus, perhaps the fear of losing one life would be an effective form of prevention of the commitment of serious crimes. However, this may not be fair to the criminal himself, since in this case, he is like a 'sacrificial lamb', since the purpose of his execution is not to pay for his crime, but to serve as a deterrence and prevent others from repeating what he has done. The law deprives them of their rights to life, but it is justified since these people have committed crimes that included murder or similar offenses.

However, one of the main purposes of punishment is to rehabilitate the criminal, so that he may rejoin the community as a corrected, useful person. In this case, if the person as been sentenced to death, it is more than true to say that the person would be of NO use to the society. Only retribution is carried out here. If retribution is viewed as an acceptable reason behind punishment, then perhaps the death penalty can be justified. However, I believe many societies would rather rehabilitate a person than let a life go to waste, unless of course, there is no hope for that particular person. I believe the death penalty is sometimes seen as an easier way out, since the criminal would only have to endure hardship for the few minutes before the sentence is carried out. In the case of a life sentence, criminals have to suffer for the rest of their lives. I believe the lack of freedom may be equivalent, or even greater than the fear of death itself. Thus, I think life- sentence would be a more effective form of deterrence.

On the other hand, since a life sentence means these criminals were never let back into society to see if they have been reformed, we would never know if it is an effective form of deterrence or rehabilitation. Thus, until we have definite methods to stop crime, it is only reasonable to say that the death penalty is the most effective way to prevent serious crimes.

How The 5 Goals Of sentencing should work together in modern society

Modern society is the current state in which an aggregate of people live together, in a more or less ordered community. The use of the word "modern" in the question reflects how the use of the five goals has changed and evolved over time, and how it will continue to change and evolve as time goes by. The current state of society is one in which people are looking for an outlet for their untold anger, and a leader to show them the way. This means crimes are commonplace in today's world. The society has thus had  to change its interpretation of the 5 goals and implemented them in different ways. The usage of all methods "together" is what we now called the law.

The law, as they say is flawed. The old saying of "rules are meant to be broken" seems to be applied by members of modern society in am increasingly alarming rate. The main flaw is the improper application of retribution. Our laws allow for a range, and in some cases a large range for which the accused can be punished. This would mean that we are giving leeway for law breakers. As such, all members of society who are proven guilty of the same type of crime, depending on the degree of it, regardless of race, mental state or gender, should be given the same punishment. This could be applied in conjunction with the idea of incapacitation. People who are guilty of crimes that should not necessarily constitute death should be, as far as possible, incapacitated. This would mean that they would not be able to carry out their daily duties normally, but it would give them a lot more time to think about their crime. Given the current state of technology, the law can cause a temporary incapacitation, or one that can be removed or rectified based on the offender's response to it. This would reduce the problem of having to spend excessive amounts feeding these "criminals."

Deterrence is not something that the people of the modern society are very responsive to. The "rebels" of our society will simply fight against the rules, and cause problems. Thus, the use of deterrence should mostly be in the form of examples, how the people who are guilty of a crime are punished. This would work hand in hand with the previous two applications, since people would be able to see what would happen to them by seeing the incapacitated "criminals." Rehabilitation should be applied in a more aggressive way, since the incapacitated members of society can be integrated back into the society they once were a threat to, and thereby contribute to the deterrence in that their changing will show potential offenders  how they need not act. Restoration can be practiced in conjunction with these, and allow the integration of the "criminals" back into society easy again.

Ultimately, people need to be integrated back into society, and the law should only provide the stepping stones for them to go back into society.

Punishment vs Revenge

Punishment and revenge are quite different words in terms of their meanings. Punishment in crime is some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor while revenge is to seek vengeance for harm done on a person. However, people seem to view these words interchangeabaly, especially in the eyes of the victim/prosecters or people related to the victim. However, I feel that this should not be the case.

Punishment is a means of instilling law and order in a society, ensuring justice and as a means of reforming the offender by making the induvidual realize his or her mistakes. The severity of the punishment should depend on the seriousness of the crime. However, the desire to take revenge is always in the hearts of the prosecuters in court and it is thus often easy to see how the jury might misuse its authority and inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Whatever the case, it should never exceed what is requisite to reform the criminal and to protect society as whatever goes beyond this, is cruelty and revenge. If exceeded, it can do excessive harm.

An example of revenge influenced punishments would be the incident in Iran where two sisters, Zohreh and Azar, were sentenced to 99 lashes, each, when they were found guilty of “unlawful fraternisation” with two men. But one sister’s husband was not satisfied with the punishment and, showing footage from a security camera he had in his apartment, he showed the two women in conversation with two men. The Supreme Court in Tehran then, without seeing the evidence from the defence, changed the verdict to “death by stoning”.
The offender will not be reformed through this type of punishment but develop a hatred in him or her toward the society and a want to take revenge and hence might commit more crimes.

Crime today is a very major and significant issue. We see crimes being committed at an alarming rate and new forms of crimes that were previously unheard of being committed. This can pose a major threat to our society if not dealt with appropriately. Revenge should never be a factor when handing out a punishment, only reforming the offender should be the motive.

The most effective way to eradicate crime is by instiling fear. Do you agree?

Fear is indeed the most effective way to eradicate crime. In fact, this system is used in almost every country where punishment for crimes is carried out. The one thing other than conscience that is most likely to deter a potential criminal from perpetrating a crime is the fear of getting punished by law. Imprisonment, caning and death penalties are some of the harsher forms of punishment, and inflict pain, either physically or psychologically on the criminals. However, to completely eradicate crime, much harsher punishment must be meted out even for small acts of crime. That is why even in modern times, crime is still happening despite the presence of fear.

One example of near complete crime eradication is in the country of Wallachia during the reign of Vladislav III or Vlad the Impaler, the figure that inspired the Dracula novel. He enjoyed cruel torture methods to punish criminals and political enemies. His name, “Vlad the Impaler” was derived from his favourite form of torture, impalement. Due to his cruel acts of torture, crime rates were extremely low during his reign. It was even said in an old Romanian story that Vlad once left a golden cup in the middle of the street. When he returned the next day, the cup was still there, as people, afraid of his cruel forms of torture dared not to take the cup. This example shows that fear is indeed the most effective way to eradicate crime, but the consequences would be far too great, at the cost of basic human rights. Thus, even though fear instilment is effective, it is not feasible.

By saying that the most effective way to eradicate crime is by instilling fear, one may also say that minimising the temptations to commit crimes is another good way to eradicate crime. In fact, both methods are nearly impossible to achieve, especially in today’s context, where there are strong emphasis on human rights.

From the above example, many would probably feel that Vladislav III was a criminal himself. As such, who determines how and who to instil fear? There is no real difference between crime and threat which instils fear. The above example also shows that the best way to instil fear is through cruelty, which is an intolerable concept in modern day society. Thus, even though instilling fear is indeed the most effective way to eradicate crime, it is impossible to achieve.

With regards to Hui Min’s entry, I do agree with her stand, that the police should not have unlimited powers when dealing with crime. In my opinion, no one can be granted unlimited powers. Afterall, who determines or grants such power? If the police has unlimited powers, what would be the difference between such a system and a military government? Evil intentions are present in every human beings and thus, no one should be granted unlimited powers no matter how perfect he or she may seem to be.

-Jia Hao

Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

As quoted from Spider-man: ‘with great power comes great responsibility.’ To determine the amount of power granted to someone, one must first determine the ability of that person to undertake the responsibility of having a certain amount of power bestowed upon them. In recent years, the number of reports on police misconduct has been on the rise. This goes to show that the police cannot be trusted with power. When one is given too much power, abuse of that power tends to occur. Although police were once perceived to be selfless law enforcers, this no longer holds true.

Take for example the recent report of a case of abuse by the police. In the U.S., a 19 year old girl was punched and kicked repeatedly while being dragged to a waiting police van. The entire scene was captured on a surveillance camera and people worldwide were shocked by the brutality of the attack. It is in the nature of every single one of us to be greedy, especially where power is concerned. People with power would naturally want more power, and in this case, the police have proven that they are unable to handle the responsibility that comes with great power.

This is especially true in developing countries. Police there tend to be corrupted as they are often tempted by bribes by syndicate bosses. Because of their low pay and poor working conditions, police readily accept these bribes as a source of extra income. They may also do their job half heartedly by ignoring evidence in crime cases because it means more work for them at the same amount of income. Thus, law enforcement there is weak and police usually close an eye on any unlawful doings. In this case, unlimited power definitely cannot be granted. Without unlimited power, police are already ignoring law and are corrupted. If unlimited power is granted, it is safe to assume that the world would be in jeopardy.

In corrupted countries, citizens fear the police more than the crooks themselves. This is because police frequently abuse their power, by assuming the role of God where they punish whoever they like, and claim they do it in the name of justice. Thus, this abuse of power defeats the purpose of the police.

In conclusion, until only the police force can be entirely made up of law abiding people with integrity, then can unlimited power be granted. However, that is unlikely to happen since we are all greedy by nature. Thus, unlimited power cannot be granted to the police.

New Media

Both articles 1 & 2 are talking about the internet as a form of media. The articles point out some of the pros and cons of this type of "totally open and free" media. The first article discusses about issues that are relating to the new methods of entertainment and the new freedom that people are said to only have from "the last hope for a free press" a.k.a the internet. To understand how the internet can provide power to the people, or be a threat to stability, we first have to examine the internet itself. As said in article 1, "the all-too-human reality of the web is that the majority of its traffic is directed to sex sites." This shows how, despite having a vast, constantly updated database that can be accessed wherever there is a connection to the cellphone network, people still use or rather abuse its ability to host images and videos to fulfill their sexual desires. This would mean that the internet is not being embraced as a new form of media since it is  being used as a method of achieving sexual desires. The presence of some excellent uses of the internet, like web applications, or YouTube and social networking sites does not simply merit the internet to take over traditional media as the "New Media." Social networking sites like facebook allow users to track the thoughts and views of individuals on a whole variety of topics, even if they are not trained journalists.

The other popular topic linking media to the internet is blogging. Blogs are simply websites that are either maintained by large organizations for individuals who are unable to purchase a domain for hosting their own website, and do "work" for free, or websites maintained by traditional media companies to allow some of their paid reporters to do online "specials," where they are able to more freely express themselves. Although the people may abuse the openness of such forms of "media" to promote "extremism," as put by article 2, the people are free to choose what they believe and what should be discarded or put up for open debate on more popular websites. As such, people should be given their right to free speech and allowed to express their views openly on the internet, and responsible netizens should take it upon themselves to see if an article is credible before believing it.

Although extreme views may be expressed on blogs, in the form of videos or images with captions, people should not be easily swayed by any one-sided argument. One thing I have personally experienced is that blogs tend to be essentially the papers, with more of the "human" part in it. The ones owned by public companies of course. The social or animal or food or countless other types of blogs are a whole different story. According to Aarommal, the internet is not susceptible to the censorship  of the traditional media. I strongly disagree, since countries still monitor the internet for sensitive or "potentially harmful" topics and views. These people are punished, be it openly or in a more secretive manner. This happened in Singapore itself, when two men were jailed for posting racist views on their blogs. This is correct by me, but does not go with Aarommal's views. The example given by Aarommal of cyberterrorism is not as of now a common thing, but could be in the future. The hiring of skilled hackers to handle the job of what a trained bomber would have to do many times over to achieve the same devastation shows the shift in the paradigm and how cyberterrorism could potentially be more dangerous than traditional terrorism.

Ismail

New Media

The two articles talk mainly about the pros and cons of the new media; mainly the internet. The first article talks more about the positive side of the internet. It states that the internet is a useful medium through which democracy could be practiced by voicing out views through things such as blogging. However it also states that the information on the internet can be manifested and even untrue. Article 2 states that the internet can be a dangerous tool which people can use for their selfish needs and to influence or radicalize others.

The new media can often be a threat to stability but sometimes be a source of power to the people.

The power of expressing ones emotions freely is one major benefit that the new media offers us. The internet as said by the first article can be used to express ones views on any issue which would otherwise be restricted in traditional forms of media such as newspapers which do so to prevent any conflicts arousing from any provocative comments. The internet through its features such as you tube, blogs or more recently face book allow people to freely express their view without revealing their identity if they do not want to. The internet, with its weaker restrictions allows people to post ongoing news on certain sensitve issues that otherwise would not have been published in the traditional media. This allows people to know more about what is actually going on behind the scenes. In this way, the new media actually gives people power.

However, the new media can also be a threat to our stability. Examples of people who can use the internet to cause mayhem are terrorists or extremists. These people can use new media such as the internet to influence people through appealing extremist ideas to join their ranks and become part of their illegal organizations just like how the lawyer Abdul Basheer Abdul Kadir who was influenced by radical media online.

Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure. It can be used in the form of Cyber-terror which can also affect internet-based businesses due to the downtime created by cyber criminals through false information and influence. An example would be the incident in 1999 where hackers who were protesting against the NATO bombings in Kosovo. The computers in NATO flooded them with email and hit them with a denial of service and institutions were bombarded with highly politicized emails containing viruses from other European countries.

Responding to Jia Hao’s entry, I agree that the youth are one of the the most vulnerable to being influenced by the internet since they use it most frequently and their emotional minds are very easily manipulated by the extremist and radical ideas. I also agree with Hui Min that the new media is a potential threat to multi-racial Singapore since it allows comments on sensitive issues such as racial ones to be posted uncensored to the public and this may cause racial tensions. Thus we should learn to trust each other and practice tolerance when necessary and prevent social instability in Singapore at any cost.

New Media- Power to the people or Threat to Society?

The new media mentioned in these 2 articles refers mainly to the internet, the network linking millions of households together, providing instant access to an almost unlimited amount of information. There has been much debate over whether this new technology has granted power to the people or added on to the threats already present to society. Generally, the power granted refers to the freedom of expression over the internet, and availability of uncensored information, while the threat refers to the social tensions that can be aroused by certain inconsiderate remarks of the posters.

The power that the new media has granted to the people is mainly the freedom of expression. With the new media, the internet, people are able to instantly upload information to the network, which can then be viewed almost instantly by anyone with internet access. Hence, censorship of this new media is insignificant. People can discuss about sensitive issues with the benefits of anonymity on the internet. Thus, people feel more comfortable commenting on such issues without having to fear or consider about how the others think about their comments. In the first article, it was mentioned how people can post their own articles on their blogs and websites such as youtube.com. These comments are no longer limited to just textual accounts, and may include videos as well. As such, the new media does grant power to the people.

However, the new media has also introduced a new medium of information manipulation. While anyone with internet access can post anonymous articles, so can the big organizations, including the government. Propaganda takes on a new form, and is not only a privilege to those in power, but also to unlawful people who try to create social unrest. As a result, more people are getting tempted into joining terrorist organizations. An example is the case of Abdul Basheer Abdul Kadir, a young lawyer, as mentioned in the second article. After being self-radicalised on the internet, he began planning militant activities. If even well-educated people such as a lawyer can be influenced by such radical ideas, what about other less educated citizens? Would they be more vulnerable to exposure of such extreme contents?

Other ways that the media threatens stability is the way in which freedom of expression is granted. As long as one has internet access, he is capable of posting anonymous contents, which may be discriminating in nature. Certain social groups may find it offensive, and spark of social conflicts between the different social groups. Unlike the traditional media, where the audience is dependent on the popularity of the media, the internet allows for almost anyone with internet access to view, no longer limited to any boundaries. As a result, there are an even larger number of audiences, making the presence of such dangerous time-bombs on the internet even more risky than any other forms of media. Thus could be seen how the media provides a threat to stability of the society.

The first article mainly deals with how the internet has revolutionised the media, how it allows for uncensored information to be made available to the public, and how the internet fares when compared against the newspaper, where information manipulation is very common. Its stand in general with relevance to the topic, is that the new media does grant people power, by allowing people the ability to escape from the manipulation of the large organizations that dominate the media industry.

The second article is more focused on stating how the new media threatens the stability of the society, but I feel that the new media is not entirely to be blamed for these threats. What is it exactly that forces our youths to turn to these extremists for support? It is in fact the fast pace of our society, where academic certificates seem to be all there is to the lives of teenagers. Those who are unable to take on this stress become emotionally more vulnerable are thus much more easily manipulated by others, hence more susceptible to radical ideals on the internet.

In conclusion, I believe that even though the new media does indeed grant more power to the people, it also acts as a threat to stability not only in individual countries, but to the stability of the whole world.

With response to Hui Min’s entry, I agree that the new media threatens the stability of multi-racial Singapore to a large extent, but I also feel that this applies to many other countries as well. In Singapore, racial harmony is celebrated every year, and the people are used to living together in harmony. Hence the citizens of Singapore are less likely to be offended as much by those inappropriate articles. In my opinion, with the growing trend of globalisation and migration, all kinds of people can be found in every society, leading to a change in the social structure of the country. The stability of these countries is hence likely to be under even greater threat of the new media as the people would be less accepting of the different neighbours who live among them.

In general, I agree with Hui Min’s stand that the new media as a threat to stability is greater than how the new media grants power to the people. The example of the film “Fitna”, in my opinion, is a very appropriate example as it is a recent event and sufficiently elaborates how the new media threatens the stability of the world. If not for the new media, the film might not have attracted so much attention. It was the presence of video sharing websites such youtube.com and veoh.com that the film “Fitna” has been viewed by so many people around the world, generating negative comments on this film, increasing social tension in the community.

-Jia Hao

In this modern society, most of what we do or say is restricted by the government. This is to ensure that we do not cause any conflict between different groups of people. In the past, the purpose of the media was to give people the information they needed, and to tell the truth. However, nowadays, the media has a team of editors to make sure that what they say falls within the ‘acceptable’ category, and thus not much freedom is given to them. This is especially true in Singapore where people of different races and religions coexist, hence the greater need for censorship of the media. However, with new media, the general public is allowed to express one’s views freely. Whether or not this is a good thing is a debatable issue.

With sites such as Youtube and discussion forums, people now have more platforms to express their views and takes on matters. In this open ground, there are no restrictions whatsoever- one states his or her opinions just as they are. This is good in the sense that the truth can be heard. The internet gives muted voices the power to speak- for example, an employee unhappy with the employer can express his views anonymously and not suffer any consequences for it. However, if he were to tell other employees about it, the employer may somehow get to know of it and his job could be at risk. Also, I think that new media has a wider audience than that of the ‘old’ media, such as newspapers and magazines. As youths are much more tech- savvy nowadays, they turn to the internet for information more than they do with the papers or the news on television. The convenience of the internet makes one less inclined to browse through the papers to read censored views- why read that when you can obtain the truth online? The internet is some sort of peaceful revolution, since opinions are shared and discussed openly. People can then source around until they decide on what Is th real truth and make informed decisions, instead of relying on the newspapers which tend to talk about what they think is the right thing to say, instead of the right thing itself. So yes, new media does give power to the people. It is the voice of the people and perhaps the only thing in this modern society that is liberal.

However, that being said, new media does give power to the people, but at what cost? The downside of new media is that the freedom of access to information on the internet may lead one to the wrong information. As stated in the second article, terrorist groups are making use of the internet to spread extreme ideas on the internet. Tech- savvy youths then self- radicalize themselves and end up as members of terrorist organizations. With more pornographic sites on the internet, unsuspecting youths may end up clicking on the wrong link and thus end up with a head start in sex education in the wrong way. Also, some opinions people post on the internet are offensive and disturbing. Take for example the film Fitna, which was produced by a Dutch politician. He abused the rights to freedom of speech and posted his take on the Islamic community online in the form of a film. This led to social tensions between the Islamic community and the Dutch government. Thus, one person’s perspective, when expressed on a global platform, will definitely be a threat to society.

Therefore, I conclude that although new media is power to the people, is more of a threat to stability, especially when in the wrong hands.

The End of Customer Service

According to the article, customer service was conceived in the early 20th century. In that era, people "told the clerk behind the counter what you wanted and he fetched it for you." Unfortunately, or fortunately, we are unable to recieve this type of customer service these days. Now, the clerk tells us to do things for him! I have experienced this first hand, at a reputable supermarket chain, a clerk behind the counter asked me to go to the isle and get myself the free packet of biscuits which were supposed to be bundled with the chocolates I had purchased! I had to go and get it myself! I have heard of self service, but this is too much! What this story does prove is that the era of customer service is drawing to a close, and the era where computers aid us in doing the task of what the clerks if the bygone era did for us. The writer says: "now that companies have gotten you used to the idea, they are poised to go all the way." I would agree to this, since we have been exposed to the idea of self-service for so long that there is no uprising against the shift. If all the students of the world were suddenly told by their teachers that there would no longer be any classes, and that they need only come for exams to schools, there would no doubt be an uprising. But, since we have grown so used to keying in our own credit card numbers or swiping our own credit cards at kiosks, we are not disturbed by this change.

One of the first companies to have an online store of their own was apple inc.. They had their online store opened at the start of the internet revolution. Although initially not welcomed, the store grew on people, and now, everyone would rather walk to their computer rather than the store to buy themselves an apple-branded product. Although one has to key in his or her own credit card number, they are able to have a sense of ownership over the computer they purchased online, since this type of purchasing will allow the person to "customize" their computers. Although you do not physically go into the guts of your computer to replace the "RAM," you have a sense of satisfaction that you took part in the process. Consumers are now able to blame their fellow consumer for the queue holdup, since it is them who is doing the checking-in or checking-out.

This means that the companies incur much less consumer dissatisfaction, since the consumers blame each other for the unintuitive process of work the company has designed for them to do. However, the problem of the "pushy salesperson" is overcome. However, as the writer puts it, "... clerks aren't completely going away. You just don't have to see them." The clerks are now more highly skilled, and are required in smaller numbers. This will mean the solving of the problem of the labour shortage being solved. However, it means that we are becoming more dependent on technology for our everyday tasks. This dependence on technology is uncomfortable to some, but no matter how much we fight against it, we have to go the way of technology, since it is the better way most if not all of the time.

Thus, I agree with the writer that the era of customer service is coming to an end, and everything will soon become self-service in the near future.

#7 Aging Gracefully

How does one define 'old', or ‘elderly’? In some countries, for instance, Singapore, anyone aged above 65 is considered old. In Japan, however, as stated in the article, one is generally not considered old until he or she reaches the age of 100. This is largely due to the huge advancements in medical discoveries and also the falling birth rate of Japan. People now live longer, thus the term ‘old’ is relative.

In this article, Hannah Beech touches on the issue of a country having an aging population. What's different about this article is instead of portraying an aging population as a hindrance to the country’s economic growth and society, it states that the elderly are the ones who are, or will be contributing more to the country. The title, ‘aging gracefully’, gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘growing old’. When we say that someone has aged, or can be classified as an elderly, one usually jumps to the conclusion that he or she has retired and can no longer contribute to society. However, in this article, instead of conforming the elderly to that stereotype, it says that ‘it’s hardly fair to dismiss senior citizens as an inevitable burden on society’, implying that senior citizens do indeed play a major role in a country’s growth, thus, the main idea of this article is that it is fine to have a country with elderly citizens as the majority, since they are able to contribute to society just as well as younger citizens, or do an even better job.

I agree with the author as I think the elderly can contribute to society in many ways, and thus should not be perceived as ‘sitting idly at home’. Raising the retirement age to encourage them to re-join the workforce will not only raise the social status of the elderly, but also help boost the economy in Japan. This will change the general impression people have of the elderly as old folks who feed off the pension funds and wait for the government to provide for them. The article states that ‘Britons over 50 years of age, for instance, control 75% of the country's wealth’. 75% is a huge proportion, and a change in this could lead to a country’s downfall or growth, so how can one say that elderly citizens are a burden on society?

However, this idea that having an aged population is fine certainly has many loopholes. Although the current situation of countries with aging populations is still relativey stable, how much longer can it last? In Japan, the proportion of elderly citizens is ‘set to reach 42% by 2050’. This will definitely cripple the economy as there is a limit to how much elderly citizens can contribute to society. Compared to younger citizens, the elderly are definitely less dynamic and may be slower in solving problems, or even less creative in coming up with ideas, thus having an aged workforce will surely do more harm then good to a country. Also, the country has to increase the budget for pension payments and healthcare schemes for the elderly, therefore leaving fewer resources for other sectors such as education.

This idea cannot be taken seriously as there are too many risks involved. Countries facing population crisis should seek alternatives, such as employing foreign talent, or giving baby bonuses to try to raise their birth rate to counter the effects of an aging population, lest it suffers an economic slowdown.

#4 Reverse Radicalism

Radicalism. What is it about? This issue that has stirred up much feelings amongst many is not something to be happy about. A radical, or also known as an extremist, is one who holds or follows strong convictions that are usually unorthodox. In this way, he strives to put his “extreme” views across to the opposing party in any way possible, ignorant to the feelings or the emotions of others. This subject of Radicalism has been brought up, one too many times, but people are just no able to eradicate it. It’s like a newly discovered disease that has been taking the lives of many and placing it under its wrath. Therefore, in my following opinion on the concept of radicalism, I will be touching on the news on “Reverse Radicalism” that was published in the latest TIMES Magazine.
From the news, I have gained sufficient knowledge to understand the concept on radicalism and why it’s so “dangerous”. Radicalism In my opinion is not a “touch-and-go” kind of thing. It basically requires the party involved to show lifelong commitment to the development of its radical groups. However, the formation of such groups is not of similar usefulness as compared to the formation of a political group or sorts. These groups fundamentally bring along fear and destruction along with their creation. Radicalism today is strongly associated with terrorism.

The main questions that were brought up in the news article were, “Why do people join terrorist groups” and “Why do people leave terrorist groups”. These two questions are widely arguable. “Freedom, justice, contentment, a sense of honour” is the few catch words that can describe why people join terrorist groups. As quoted from the magazine,
“…seem to join in search of purpose, excitement or status. They seem to be fighting loneliness…”
But how in the first place did these people even know that they would be awarded with what they presume such groups will have to offer them. This is where the biggest predicament lies. They enter with hopes, but end up in nothing but just dirt and dust. They are treated like slaves. In the name of upholding their religion’s pride and status, they are made use of, to do unsightly killings and devastating damage to all who stand in their path. They are sort of brainwashed into doing such acts. They are oblivion to their own wrongdoings, and eventually snap out of their trance and find out that they have just created a whole load of chaos in the world. This is the point of time, where they understand that even though they have the urge to fight for their religion, they shouldn’t do it in such heartless ways. This was shown by an ex- Jemaah Islamiah official who felt and knew that he was doing something really wrong from the start. Hence, his feelings took the best of him as he withdrew from the all time dangerous extremist group. He made reference to the Islam in his act and quoted,

“…It’s well defined in the Koran whom we are supposed to fight. It is therefore not justifiable to kill anyone who is innocent…”

His quote had really shown that the extremists who were fighting for the rights of Islam were actually going against their own religious rights by not following what the Koran itself had stated. This has made many members of such terrorist groups to ponder over their wrongdoings and has led to their withdrawal from the terrorist groups.

In that case, what is “Reverse Radicalism”? In layman terms, it is the process undergone by ex-terrorists to educate and enlighten the detained terrorists, and make them understand and relook into the fact that Terrorism itself goes against the statement of their religion. In this way, these detainees who achieve enlightenment act as a voice projection to the current ongoing terrorists to let them know that what they are doing is actually wrong, both physically and spiritually. This procedure of Reverse Radicalism is being put to the test in various countries including Singapore itself. I feel that it is really effective and efficient in the fact that there may actually be a possibility for the complete eradication of terrorism by terrorists themselves. It will, at the same time put a vital message to many onlookers around the world, and allow them to think the exact way when they are stuck under similar situations of smaller adversity. It states a message that whenever we create a problem for ourselves or to others, we are the only ones whom are able to fix it and resolve the issue. No one else knows what you are thinking unless it is expressed clearly to the target group.

#1 Common Wealth

The article, Common Wealth, discusses the topic on why we have yet to solve the impending environmental crisis. It starts off by comparing the previous century's changes with this current century's. While the former is more on shiftment of power between the european countries and America, the latter focuses not only on the rising powers, but also the need to allocate our resources and work together, not as a nation, but as a world to solve the environmental crisis.

The article also brings to attention the fact that we, humans share a common planet, and would all suffer the same fate in the event of an environment crisis- destruction.

The fact that in human history, countries are often in some kind of rivalry with each other has led to us being used to the idea that the world is all about competition between countries for resources, markets and power. Yet, if we all share a common fate, even if one country gains dominance, what good would it be if the world is on the path to destruction?

Hence, countries should work together, as one to solve the environmental and population crisis. Examples of countries using large amounts of money on worthless wars such as the U.S-Iraq war has proven that we humans do have the fundings required, it is just a matter of whether we are willing to. The article also mentioned some success stories when the world worked together and succeeded in producing the desired outcomes. The key element is to have a clear objective, an effective technology, a clear implementation strategy and a source of financing.

In our current age, we do possess the level of technology required to bring about the required changes, for example green technology such as hybrid automobiles and solar energy. If we can share our resources, we can definitely solve the environmental crisis. We just have to make the right investments.

Another key idea stated in the article is the idea that political leaders are the leaders. As a result, people would just wait for the government to initiate ideas. However, in the current world where democracy rules, the leaders are in fact, just followers who follow the will of the people. If the people ask for change, a change must be implemented. With the right technology and sufficient wealth required, what we need is to take action to start the ball rolling. Only then will we be able to work as one and solve the environmental crisis.

6) GEOENGINEERNG

The author feels that geoengineering is one of the only way of reducing the effects caused by excessive release of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, global warming. He also believes that the only feasable way of doing so is to relaease large amounts of sulphur debris into the atmosphere to form a haze that would keep the planet cool.

I agree with the author to a certain extent. It is quite alarming that all the ice in the artic could melt by as early as 2013. Thus action has to be taken quickly as the melting of the ice could lead to major problems such as flooding due to the rise in sea level and the extinction of artic animals such as the polar bear that cannot survive in high temperatures. Since countries find it hard to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emmissions and find it very expensive to decarbonize the atmosphere, the only relatively cheap and possible way would be the releasing of sulphurous debris to reduce earths temperature.

However, the release of sulphur in to the atmosphere can be very dangerous. Sulphur is very poisonous and can pollute the air. This can cause harmful effects, especially on people. when inhaled by people can cause respiratory problems such as asthma. In the form of sulphur dioxide, sulphur can also dissolve in rainwater to form acid rain which is highly corrosive.

This article really shows us what people's complacency has brought us to. We are now faced in a situation where we do not have enough time to solve the problem of global warming in the safest possible manner, decarbonizing, as ice is melting fast but our only fast enough alternative, releasing sulphur, endangers our health. Thus we are now facing a two-way problem; one, the lack of time and the other, compromising our health.

The Kyoto Protocol had been signed more than a decade ago, already warning people of the dangers of global warming and urging them to start taking action in protecting the environment. However, due to greed and complacency very little started to act. This has led us to where we are today. At least from this very moment, people should start acting consciously in protecting the environment and maybe the situation can still be salvaged. After all its better late then never.