What role do you think religion has to play in the public sphere of Singapore? Justify your stand.

Religion, in my opinion forms a major portion of our lifestyle in the society of Singapore. This is mainly due to the fact that Singapore is a multi-racial society. This also adds on to the fact that there will apparently be many more religions in place. Therefore, in this era, I feel that religion has a key role to play in our public sphere in Singapore.

When touching on religion, this issue can be branched out into many aspects of which religious policies and religious ethics are the main concern in the public sphere of Singapore.

Religion is not always about following a specific set of “rules” that lay out a list of expectations that those under the religion must follow. Religion in today’s society is also a form of bridging the gap between the various races and in turn, each Singaporean in the society. To assist in doing so, the government has stepped in to incorporate some valuable information into the education system of the youths so that the initiation can reach out to the young who will then spread it when they become adults. In schools, especially at primary level, “Racial harmony Day” is shown much recognition when each school student is asked to come to school dressed in attire that is of another race. This act itself will help the students to understand more about each other’s religion and culture and this will develop into a special value that is ingrained in them.

Throughout the day the children are allowed to learn more about each other’s religious practices through games and many other activities. This is a clear example as to why I state that religion acts as a form of a bridge in between races and the public.

Hence, it can be seen that religion puts its place in public sphere of Singapore by bridging the gap between races and each Singaporean. As long as the understanding of each other’s religion, race and culture is taken into consideration in our lifestyle, our society will be able to survive any difficulty that comes along our way.

Is personal morality the concern of the State? (1996)

Personal morality is often not considered as a concern of the state, as different individuals have different moral values, which are largely based on their own religion and upbringing. Hence it is impossible to consider personal morality as a concern of the State. However, in certain cases whereby a large group of people have a common personal morality, it should be a concern of the state as the state has the responsibility to address the needs of the people.
In the case of Singapore, where the population consists of different racial and religious groups, certain religious regulations are upheld by the law. For example, the issue of homosexuality is still a common debate in Singapore, and it is prohibited by the law. Sexual activity between males is prohibited. Homosexuality can be considered as a personal morality issue, as it does not really have a distinct harm effect. However, homosexuality is prohibited in several religions in Singapore, hence, due to majority disapproval; it is considered a crime in Singapore.
However, in most cases, personal morality should not be a concern of the state. In terms of religions, several of the regulations are not included in the state laws of Singapore. For example, while Muslims are not allowed to eat or touch pork, there is no rule to prohibit the selling of pork-related food in food centres. In the same way, what is condemned by the churches in Singapore may not be condemned by the state. While some races and religions prohibit marriages between people of different religion or even race, such regulations are not included in the state laws in Singapore. Rather, the state laws follow the opinions of the majority citizens, and personal moralities are not really concerns of the state.
Another reason why personal moralities are not really a concern of the state is because personal moralities may not necessary have a distinct harm effect and hence is insufficient to make others agree that those personal moralities are justified. This is supported by moral philosopher John Rawls’ quote, “Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and put up public justifications for what they believe in. In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.” As seen from this quote, personal moralities should only be a concern to the state when it is sufficiently justified, and of enough reasons to convince others.
In conclusion, personal moralities should not always be a concern of the state, unless it has sufficient reasoning to convince others why it should and should not be included in the state regulations.
I agree with Aarommal Jack that religions can help to provide or generate new policies for Singapore, as most religions have similar basic values and are often the basis of the law in one country or another. Hence, in a way, religions provide insights into the success of different countries and the multi-religious society of Singapore allow the Singapore government to adopt pragmatic policies that contribute to the success of the other nations to help in the development and improvement of the Singapore society.
-Jia Hao

WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT RELIGION HAS TO PLAY IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE IN SINGAPORE?

Religion can play a mojor role in many ways in Singapore's public sphere. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality.

Although religion involves many issues that encompass the supernatural such as the presence of a god which are all scientifically yet to be proven, we cannot plainly say that religion would have no role to play in a modern and highly practical country such as Singapore. Religion as I see is something that encompasses a ‘set of guidelines’ as to which how a man should act and something that teaches a person to have good morals. The supernatural aspect of religion I feel is not the core of a religion. For instance, when a person is required to pray a certain number of times a day to god who is supernatural, the motive of this I feel is not the paying of respects to god but to inculcate discipline in man. It takes discipline to plan your time and ensure that you pray a certain number of times a day when you are tempted to do so many other things. Thus it is in this aspect religion can help Singaporeans become morally sound people who are able to differentiate the right from the wrong.

Moreover, religions often encompass many views and ideas as to how a country or person should function. These ideas can at times apply to Singapore’s context today and help the country come up with new policies for the good of the people. This is clearly supported by philosopher John Rawls who feels that any idea, including those coming from religion should never be brushed aside as long as the arguments and points are just and will have a good impact on people. Thus, religion can be used as a source to generate or influence new policies for the good of people.

Thus we can see can that religion can play quite a significant role in Singapore.

Criminals are born, not made. Comment.

People on this Earth are given birth to lay foot on these grounds as normal human beings. No one is recognised as a doctor or a lawyer, the second he or she is born. Similarly, it is outright wrong to notify that criminals are born. In my opinion, I feel that there are a few factors that contribute to criminals being made or developing. I will highlight these various factors along the way in my write up.

Parents form one of the main reasons as to why criminals are being made. To put it in greater detail, the actions of parents cause their children to turn to crime and other such heinous activities. Actions in this case, can be either in the form of what the parents put forth on their children, such as treating them like dirt, disrespecting their basic dignity or merely abusing them badly. On the other hand, their actions can also be those that reflect upon themselves whereby they also involve in criminal activities.

There is a saying that “The youth of today, are the leaders of tomorrow”. However, in this context, the abused youth of today, turn out to be the criminal minded terrors of tomorrow. Children whom are brought up in a family where they are being constantly abused develop a mentality that no one cares about them and in return, they too should care for no one. When this mentality develops in them in a young age, their future will solely be based on this mentality itself. They begin to be anti-socialists. They begin to shun people and think that hitting or causing harm to a random stranger is completely fine. This then arises to the point where they are stamped to be criminals of the society. A research has been done by Caledon Institute, stating that over 50% of violent offenders witnessed abuse in their homes during their youth and that physically abused youths are 5 times more likely to become violent adults. This statement clearly shows that the criminals are being made and not born into the society.

Living areas and where people live, also determines the fact as to why criminals are made and not born. Compare the differences between a person living in a friendly neighbourhood and a person who has grown up in a “Brothel”. It is apparent that the person who grew up in the friendly neighbourhood will turn out to be a normal person with a right mind of life. However, when looking at the person who grew up in the “Brothel”, there is this slight contemplation that he may be affected mentally through his life. When eyeing the harsh situations that take place around his living area since young, he grows up with the mentality that, the way of a prostitute is the normal way of life. He has yet to see light in the outer world and so, knows nothing about it. Therefore, when he finally gets a chance out into the civilization, he acts differently towards people especially his female counterparts. He may forcefully carry out sexual assaults on these people and feel that it is okay, but at the end of the day, it is the law that dictates him to be a sexual offender or basically, a criminal.

The final reason as to why I feel that criminals are being made and not born is because of the fact that these people undertake activities that are socially undesirable and from there, they unknowingly develop a certain sense of satisfaction in committing crimes. In this case, when stating “socially undesirable activities”, I relate to things like drug and alcohol abuse. In a recent case study by “Sheffield Pathways Out of Crime Study (SPOOCS), at the University of Sheffield”, it is stated that they have found a link between drug abuse and criminal activities by these abusers. When these abusers inhale drugs and consume alcohol, they develop a care-free mindset where anything they do, they consider it to be good and lawfully correct. Hence, when these abusers suddenly turn to crime, they may not have committed it intentionally but under the law, they did practice criminal activities and so they will be convicted.

Hence, from the examples and factors that I have stated, I can truthfully justify that criminals of today are not born but are sculpted by certain factors and forces. These criminals are still normal human beings under their criminal facade. Thus, it is incorrect to state that they were born criminals as all of us step foot on this planet as one from of living species-humans.

Criminals Are Born Not Made. Comment

I disagree that criminals are born and not made. Criminals are made due to circumstances and environment that life hurls at a person. Things such as child abuse and unemployment influence a person to become a criminal.

When a person grows up in a disturbed family environment that constantly has incidences of violence in the form of child abuse to the person himself or spousal abuse to one of the person’s parents, his mind becomes clouded and influenced by such incidences. He grows up with feelings of hatred and trauma that he bottles up within him throughout his childhood. When this feeling becomes too overwhelming, it oozes out of him in the form violent behaviour and eventually crimes. This shows criminals are made and not born.

When a person grows up in an environment that crime rates are high and law enforcement is lax, it urges a person to succumb to the temptations of committing a crime. Such a living environment influences a person to commit crimes as he feels that it is easy to get away with committing crimes. Thus he becomes less afraid to commit crimes.

Media and entertainment also influence a person to become a criminal. For instance, when a person grows up continually watching movies or playing video games that portray violent behaviour and crimes, he tends to view crimes and violence as more or less a normal thing. Thus he too finds it normal to commit crimes and becomes involved in crimes, becoming a criminal. This can be seen in America with high school shooting becoming more and more common. An example would be where two students of Columbine High School, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others before committing suicide. Some reasons speculated for this incidence included the high levels of violent video games and movies in America.

I also agree with Jia Hao that the possession of weapons causes a person to become a criminal. When a person has possession fatal weapons such as rifles, he becomes tempted to use them to commit crimes as he gets the feeling that he possesses something of great power that can protect him from the law.

All these clearly show that it is the external factors that come into play to make a criminal and that a criminal is not born a criminal. Thus we should stop blaming the genes of the criminal for the manifestation that has been caused by the living environment. Hence more focus should be placed on changing the living environment of people to prevent future criminals rather than concentrating on just punishing the criminals.

Criminals are born, not made. Comment

I do not agree that criminals are born and not made. No one is born a criminal. Criminals turn to crime either out of desperation or mental disorders, such as addictions and even for the sake of enjoyment and excitement.
In my opinion, even though there have been studies which revealed links between genetics and criminology, suggesting that genetic flaws do lead to crime, I feel that it is not correct to just state that criminals are born and not made. Indeed, there may be cases whereby criminals are born, but most of them are due to their influence by their parents. If they had not known their parents were criminals and lived with other foster parents, then they would most probably turn out as normal law-abiding citizens.
Using data from National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, it has been found that childhood maltreatment can lead to a person having twice the likelihood of turning to crime. Hence could be seen that there is also a link between a person’s childhood and crime. Being abused as a child often leads to trauma by the child, eventually leading to feelings of hate and then causing violent behaviour and then crime. Hence it can be seen the criminals are sometimes made, not born.
Having power can also contribute to crime. When one has the power to kill, there exists the temptation to kill whoever one feels is annoying. On the other hand, when one has no weapons, he or she probably would not even think of killing. According to a recent NBER Working paper by Mark Duggan, higher gun ownership leads to increase in gun-homicide rate. Hence, power sometimes does produce more criminals.
The fear of getting punished is a powerful deterrence to prevent crime. When one feels that he or she would not be caught, one is more likely to commit crimes. Take the bloggers who uploaded racist remarks for example. They had probably felt they were protected by the anonymity of the internet, and they probably would not have dared to say such racist remarks in public. Hence, crime can also be attributed by such external factors.
As seen, criminals can also be made, and not born. It is simply unfair for people to be labelled as criminals when they are born.

-Jia Hao

Criminals are born, not made. Comment.

Everyone is born with different genes in different environments. The environment moulds a person's character regardless of their genes. Therefore, I agree to a small extent that criminals are born, not made.

Some people may think that people born with aggressive instincts are more prone to becoming criminals in the future. The public stereotypes gangsters who pick fights as aggressive people. They have this perception that since aggressiveness is innate, these aggressive people resort to violence to solve problems. A study in Denmark from 1924 to 1946 found that chronically criminal biological parents were three times as likely to produce a chronically criminal son as were biological parents with no such convictions. Yes, some criminals may be born with mental illnesses, but how many mental patients actually commit crimes? Even if they do so, many of them are influenced by external factors. Tsutomu Miyazaki, aka “the Little Girl Murderer” murdered many girls in the late 1980s and was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. However, most mental patients receive counseling and may be cured. Thus, this reiterates my point that the environment largely affects a person’s “criminal probability”.

Also, the mass media may be responsible for a person’s transition into a criminal. Many movies glorify crime and there is desensitization to the real world situation. Movies such as Ocean’s Eleven glamorize bank robbery and this will have a negative impact on a person’s values. One will believe that it is very possible to rob a bank and get away with it, when in reality, it is probably near impossible. Thus the public may pick up negative attitudes and behavior that may spur them on to committing crimes. Even “innocent” cartoons such as Power Rangers and Happy Tree Friends promote violence by perceiving fights as cool and portraying gory scenes as amusing scenarios. In 1993, England, two boys aged 11 were charged with the murder of James Bulger, a 2 year old toddler. After much investigation, their actions were found to be influenced by the Moor Murders, a similar crime committed years earlier. Prior to investigations, the boys were found to be normal, with no history of “bad genes”. Hiroyuki Tsuchida, 22, used a baseball bat to beat his mother to death in June 2003 in Japan. He was stopped before he could do the same thing to the rest in his family. When questioned, he claimed the anime series, Neon Genesis Evangelion, had given him the idea that humans should be eliminated, so he’d decided to start with his own family. Thus, this shows that a criminal, no matter what age and regardless of genetic makeup, is capable of committing a crime due to influences from other factors. In this case, the media proved to be extremely influential in this area.

Technology may also influence a person to commit crimes. With advancements in technology, people are more able to commit quick and fast cyber crimes. Compared to the past, people now will find it easier to siphon money off someone as it is easier and more efficient to transfer funds online, since technological security is imperfect and prone to failure. Piracy, another form of crime, is often practiced as the government lacks the manpower to conduct regular checks on people who pirate goods online. Thus, many websites pirating movies and software often go undetected. This lack of authority makes people bolder, and thus cyber crime popularity rises. In America, guns can be bought easily online and it is often difficult to trace the identities of these buyers. They might be tempted to kill because weapons are easily available. Temptation lures a person into crime regardless of genetic makeup. Thus technological advancements may give rise to borderless crime.

Family background moulds a person’s character and may cause him to become a criminal. Dysfunctional families and families which use violence excessively at home will expose their children to negative values and these children may then grow up to be criminals because they think it is right. Also, children who have little attention from parents may commit crimes to seek attention from their parents- “poor little rich kid” stereotype. Take for example the recent case of incestuous rape in Austria. In April 2008, Josef Fritzl was convicted of murder and rape. Later studies show that he had grown up without a father and his mother raised him singlehandedly with harsh beatings. John Wayne Gacy, an American serial killer who killed 33 people, also had an abusive family. His father was an alcoholic who often beat him up and called him a sissy. From these, it is evident that a criminal/s family background can have negative impacts on him or her; especially if negative experiences are had during childhood.

Therefore, I conclude that criminals are not born. Rather, they are shaped by the environment around them. Whether a person turns into a criminal or not is largely based on what he goes through in life.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In my view, I feel that a country should not be involved in the internal affairs of another country as it is a form of invasion of privacy. However, countries can get involved in certain exceptions where, their assistance brings about positive impacts to the country. Therefore, through this write up I would state why I feel that in certain cases countries should intervene in the internal affairs of another and why they should not.

From the article, a clear example as to why countries should not intervene into other countries is the US-Iraq Situation that is taking in place. As stated in the article, when US troops invaded Iraq to annihilate the opposing terrorist forces, it also caused the death of 654,965 innocent Iraqis since 2006. This shows the problems that arise when countries intervene into the internal affairs of other countries. Moreover, when this happens, the government that intervenes may not fully understand the situation that the country is put in and may end up causing more problems rather than offering a helping hand to the country.

However, there are certain times where countries can intervene into the internal affairs of others. This happens when the victim country is undergoing severe problems such as rioting or political mishaps. A simple example occurred in the 1970’s regarding the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The Tamil tigers were a terrorist organization that was set up by frustrated Tamils over the government and state officials of Sri Lanka. They caused several problems that ranged from rioting to even killings. The killings were mainly off politicians and the Sinhalese citizens. Hence, to diffuse this rage between the two parties, the Indian government stepped in to solve certain problems by providing food and clothing to poor Sinhalese and Tamil peasants who were victims to the large scale sufferings. Therefore, it can be seen that in this case, the government stepped in to help Sri Lanka in its internal affairs and brought about a positive impact rather than to cause more problems. This is an apparent example as to how and when countries should intervene into the internal affairs of other countries.

In reference to Jia Hao’s write up, I agree with his stand and his arguments that support his stand as they are somewhat parallel to my viewpoints. Therefore, I would like to reiterate my stand by stating that, countries should only intervene into other countries’ internal affairs when there is a need to or when they are sure that their assistance would be of great help to the country. In other such cases, the country should not participate in government intervention into other cou

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

I do not agree that it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, however, there are always certain exceptions in which the expertise and power of foreign nations is needed to help a country in its development.

In the case of the Iraq intervention by the American forces, the excess death toll which accounted for 2.5% of Iraq’s population is sufficient evidence to show that America’s intervention was not a successful one in helping the Iraqis regain peace and freedom. What started out as a liberation movement ended up with the American forces oppressing the Iraqis, creating confusion and chaos throughout the whole country. In this case, it is shown that the powerful nations would sometimes lose sight of their original intentions and cause more harms than benefits. Another example is the case of Rwanda, in which colonization by the European colonists led the classification of the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, who were in fact a similar race and only a form of differentiation between those in the lower and higher social classes. The minority Tutsi’s were put in power by the colonists, and when the colonists left, the majority Hutu’s rose up against the Tutsi’s, and eventually began the Rwandan genocide, in which almost 800,000 Tutsi’s and moderate Hutu’s were killed in only a hundred days. This example shows how when the foreign intervening powers leave, they leave behind a power vacuum as well, and due to the country’s ethnic cultures and discrimination during the intervention, lead to severe problems in the country’s governance such as uprising by discontented citizens.

However, there are cases in which countries should be involved in the internal affairs of another. For example, in Sudan, the government actually supports slavery and other inhumane acts towards their own citizens. In these cases, foreign powers such as the developed European nations should step in and help to prevent such human rights abuse where the citizens are helpless to defend themselves against.

In conclusion, I feel that a country should not interfere in the internal affairs of another, unless absolutely necessary as in the case of Sudan, where human rights is non-existent. They should also be responsible for helping such countries back to peace and stability before they retreat from such countries to prevent the countries’ from falling back into anarchy.

I agree with Hui Min that if a country decides to interfere with another’s internal affairs, they should finish up what they started and ensure that the country has its own stable government capable of dealing with the internal affairs before leaving as doing otherwise would probably lead to the country falling into even greater chaos as in the case of Rwanda.

I do not agree with Aarommal’s idea that foreign governments should not step into another country’s internal affairs as their own government would know what is best for the people. Even though different races have their own form of culture and rules, the government may not necessary act in the people’s best interests, especially in the case of corrupted governments such as that of the Sudanese government, which not only did nothing to prevent the abuse of human rights, but also allowed and encouraged such acts to continue within its borders.

-JiaHao

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In some cases, I feel that a country has no right to be involved in the internal affairs of another one. A country’s government should be left to deal with its internal affairs as it knows its people the best. Moreover, military intervention is the most unjustified form of internal affair involvement. When external countries interfere, they often cause more trouble then the help they extend. For instance, although USA had intentions of helping the Iraqi civilians, its troops did more damage then help with about 655000 being killed. Instead a larger and neutral body such as the United Nations Organizations should be the mainly be the one that will have the rights to interfere as it is an unbiased organization.

However in other situations, I feel that that a country can have the right to be involved in the internal another depending on the type and severity of the situation. If a country is affected by problems such as disease epidemics, other countries can get involved in helping to contain the epidemic as it will spread rapidly to other countries. An example was the SARS epidemic that started in China and spread to many other countries including Singapore. A country can also get involved in another’s internal affair when the affected country itself is unable to deal with its problems. For instance, when large scale natural disasters occur in countries, neighbouring countries can get involved by helping out in the rebuilding and recovering of the country. An example would be the tsunami in 2004 that badly hit Indonesia. Indonesia was aided by other countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, in its recovery from the natural disaster.

Therefore, I feel that the right of a country to be involved in another’s internal affairs is dependant on the situation of the affected the country.

Countries should have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries only if they are capable and willing to resolve the aftermath of invasion. According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Despite insufficient evidence to support this claim, and protests from other UN countries such as France, US went ahead with the invasion. This resulted in the deaths of many innocents, although many terrorist groups were subdued as well. Although the US claims to be defending democracy, opinion poll after opinion poll shows a majority of Iraqis want them to leave. So was it right for them to invade Iraq? Studies have shout that the US have left Iraqis discontented with their current state, and have done nothing got resolve that matter. Conspiracy theorists have suspected the US of invading Iraq to control the oil supply, in an attempt to dominate the world by dominating the world resources. In this case, it is hard to determine if it was right for them to invade Iraq. For it to be “right”, the US still faces the arduous task of piecing back the Iraqi’s lives and restoring peace and stability to their country.
It is right to interfere in the affairs of another country if human rights are concerned. In Saudi Arabia, a man and woman were both gang raped recently. Instead of being show compassion, they now face more harsh treatment than the men who brutalized them. Their crime was to be sitting in a car together and be unmarried. This is a dreadful miscarriage of justice under any religious or civil regime and is one of many such cases where human rights are ignored and non- existent.
Thus, other countries should have the right to interfere and speak up for the people who have no voice in the judicial system of their own country. Ordinary Saudi people are said to be shocked at the judicial system but have no way of expressing their true views for fear of retaliation.
It may seem wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries but sometimes it has to be done to ensure that justice and human rights are available to everyone regardless of gender, religion or nationality.
However, that being said, the government of each country should take care and run its own internal affairs in harmony with international law. Having another country solve one’s problem is not an effective method in the long run. The past couple of decades have given us a lot of evidences of the ill effects of this. To encourage the human rights in a proper manner, the cooperative international approach is all what needed very much.