21_08 GP Blog

The Arts

2008-08-23T17:47:00.001+08:00

Arts, unlike other things in life, help to enrich and instill in us humans, a sense of creativity and well-being. It is presented to us in various forms, ranging from theatrical plays, dance concerts, drama serials, and many more. However, being in a country where the Arts are given much priority, we Singaporeans do not cherish the values that we can take away from these presentations.

Creativity is one of the many key aspects of life that is largely lacking in us Singaporeans. It is a rare case to flip the newspaper one day and to spot a section in the papers that praises a Singaporean in a creative discovery or a “creative” creation. Why? Isn’t that a bit apparent to us? How will we make ourselves into such news when we fail to appreciate the Arts as much as we appreciate Usain Bolt Sprinting down the 100m lane on the Beijing Track? The only solution to this is the Arts. Arts in our modern day world, greatly helps to instill a sense of creativity. It helps us to enjoy life and at the same time, help to change our perspective on the way we view things. This is one of the few ways on why the Arts is a main factor that has to be valued in Singapore.
Next, as we move on to the next factor, please focus on this write up and shove your piles of paperwork and files away from your desk table. We Singaporeans have been rated to have the best working qualities amongst the other countries worldwide. We also have to note another fact that we ourselves know that we are too hardworking in most cases that we over stress our biological system into breakdown. What better solution is there to solve this problem, than to involve in the Arts? Musical shows and plays will help to take away that extra inch of stress off our body for the better. However, we Singaporeans, deem using the computer for hours and hours as stress relievers. We get so indulged in work and progress that once again we fail to capture the positive essence of the Arts. Therefore, to summarise the point, the Arts helps to relieve stress from our Singaporeans from our fast-paced lives.

Hence, I reinstate my stand that the Arts play a vital role in Singapore both as a stress reliever and also to inculcate important values such as the development of creativity amongst us Singaporeans.

Role Of Arts In Singapore

2008-08-22T23:47:00.001+08:00

The arts encompasses many forms such as visual arts, performing arts, language atrs, culinary arts, physical arts etc. Arts in Singapore is still not as widespread as it should be. However, the government has realized the importance of the arts we cannot argue against the fact that art is being given more and more importance and emphasis in recent times in Singapore. Arts help to play many roles in Singapore.

In terms of education, Arts help in the holistic development of students. Instead of being just bookworms who do nothing but studies in school, arts, in the form of Co-curricular activities and school organized programs help to develop the non-academic side of students. Arts also help to develop creativity in students. In today’s society where innovation is vital to one’s success, learning to be creative is a must and arts help to develop this.

Arts also serve as an avenue for jobs in Singapore. Although this is not very widespread in Singapore, it is fast picking up speed. Many nowadays are not afraid to pursue careers in the field of arts as compared to the past where everyone placed importance on academics as they felt arts would not grant them high future prospects. Moreover, in Singapore schools, there is a wide selection of courses for students who wish to pursue arts.

Traditional arts also help constantly remind Singaporeans of their rich heritage. In our society today, we are increasingly becoming more and more westernized and we tend to forget our past and heritage in the process. Thus, traditional arts serve as a reminder of our rich heritage.

Arts also serve as a form of relaxation and entertainment for people in Singapore. In Singapore’s stressful lifestyle it is necessary to take your foot of the pedal at times to relax and art helps to do this in the form of performances or television programs.

Arts can help serve many purposes in Singapore. However, it still has a long way to go.

Role of arts in Singapore

2008-08-22T21:12:00.001+08:00

The arts play a very small role in Singapore, which is the role of providing entertainment. These forms of arts come in the form of digital arts, which is mainly due to lack of time in an average Singaporean’s daily life.
In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on personal achievements, such as one’s influence, power and status, which also determines one’s success. Arts is thus viewed as unimportant, only a form of leisure. As mentioned in the article, arts is considered as a form of leisure only enjoyed by the rich, or if one has time to spare. The fast pace of life leaves little time to spare. Even if one has time to spare, it is often used for other forms of leisure, which one enjoys the most, such as sports.
However, the government has indeed put in much effort to raise the status of arts in Singapore. The Singapore Esplanade, officially opened in 2002, cost S$600 million to build. This huge budget clearly shows the effort that the government has put into trying to promote arts. The Esplanade was built to host arts events, with numerous facilities and artistic exhibitions to promote arts among Singaporeans. Numerous events have also been held to promote arts among the Singaporeans, such as the Singapore Arts Festival which spans over a period of one month annually. Artistes from over 20 countries are invited to this prestigious event. This demonstrates how the arts are rapidly gaining recognition in Singapore.
Also, the government has begun to incorporate arts into schools. Arts performances are largely advertised among the students, and subsidies offered to the students. In junior colleges, science students also have to undertake at least one arts subject to promote appreciation of the arts among the students.
In conclusion, even though the current generation of Singaporeans regard little for arts, the efforts of the government have led to the new generation having a greater appreciation of arts, and thus, arts is likely to have a much more important role to play in the future.

2008-08-21T20:41:00.000+08:00

In Singapore, the role of the arts, generally, is to entertain. It is common for us to have events which promote the arts as it is- no further in depth probing is required. All the audience has to do is to watch and applaud. Such is the role of arts in Singapore. Singaporeans in general only appreciate the aesthetics of art- the intricate details on the costumes, the fluidity of the movements. Events such as the Singapore arts festival, concerts from world famous artistes such as the Beatles and art galleries further emphasize this fact.

However, in recent years, we have seen the government try to increase awareness of the arts in Singapore. This is being done in school, where the population is still young, thus more possible and practical to induce arts appreciation in them. Firstly, we have the Singapore youth festivals. Performing arts groups from schools all over Singapore take part actively in this national event biannually. Thus, this is seen as an effort by Singapore to try to inculcate in youths an artistic side since the performer's friends would be interested to watch the performances too. Also, ccas under the arts category are introduced as early as primary school, thus students have many years to decide if they would like to pursue arts.

Secondly, we have seen an increase in the content of arts in the school syllabus. There's the Nanyang academy of fine arts (NAFA), which is an arts school for youths who are interested in the arts. There, they cultivate their interests and talents for the arts, specializing in skills such as dance or visual arts, or even modern art- photography. Then of course we have the recent introduction of the arts elective or pure arts in the secondary schools and junior colleges. This is done to encourage those who have a passion for arts to develop their interests and bring the arts scene in Singapore to greater heights.

More recently, Singapore has tried to raise the importance of arts in Singapore, as seen in the above examples. Besides the education system and concerts, Singapore has also provided for venues for the arts, one being the esplanade by the bay. The purpose of the esplanade is to host arts events, much like the Sydney opera house in Australia. Thus, the role of the arts in Singapore has risen in recent years due to efforts by the government and arts groups in Singapore.

Does Singapore allow for talent to flourish?

2008-08-16T17:29:00.002+08:00

I agree with Paulo that talent need to have some space, recognition and soul to flourish. The question is, does Singapore provide an environment rich with the above-mentioned, or is it a place where talent is gone unnoticed, where talent is seen only in the form of dollar signs, where we are too concerned with whether our ideas are agreeable with the ideas of others? I think we are. Let us begin at home, the root cause of who or what we are. At home, how many parents encourage their children to persue what they are good in? Not as a sport or just for fun, but as a legitimate career. Who among us can say that we are doing exactly what we want to do? We have all been forced to conform to the needs of society, to do well in math and excell in science. Our talents are rarely recognized, and even more rarely built upon, or improved. The talented young Singaporeans need to be embraced by society, not shunned for having a different opinion.

Due to our severe lack of confidence, our need to be sure before doing anything, we have essentially squashed many talents, not letting them be seen, or not letting them be known as a Singaporean talent. We need to be more open, more willing to make mistakes, for luck favours the brave. We need to give talent more space. We do not do this, and so what talent we have in the nation is going unnoticed.

We are also not paying attention to our talents, that is until they are hailed as the greatest something-in-the-world! We do not pay attention to the open mic shows, or the local bands performing at the park. We simply feel they are not good enough for us. We need to pay more attention to them, until we do, we will remain with a lack of talent. As Paulo put it, Singapore has a lack of resources, so we need to make the most of the one resource we have: people.

Talent

2008-08-16T16:44:00.001+08:00

From what Supian and Hartung have said, I do agree with their views in saying that talent in Singapore is too narrowly defined and she only produces a small group of people with certain types of talent. This can be clearly seen from the fact that Singapore develops itself greatly only in one specific area- Its economic status. The Singapore government does so, as it feels that the development of the economic status of the country must be its main focus. However, in doing so, it is actually narrowing its scope of producing talented people in a variety of areas of speciality.

One example as to why I feel that Singapore tend to produce only certain types of talent, can be seen in the Beijing Olympics 2008 which is going on now at the moment. From the opening ceremony to the actual games, Singapore has sent in less than a 100 Singaporeans to participate in the games. Of which, how many of them are actual Singaporeans? Meaning, they were born and bred in Singapore rather than brought in to Singapore as a foreign talent. This number is probably less than 10. Is there a specific reason for this? It’s obvious that Singapore wishes to develop in the area of sports. However, till this day it has wasted its time in not showing enough concern in the area of sports that Singapore has to turn to bringing in foreign talent to improve its sports status. This is one of the prices Singapore has to pay for producing only certain types of talent.

Therefore, from my evaluation of the current situation in Singapore, it can be justified that Singapore does focus on producing certain types of talent only. Therefore, if Singapore does continue to move on in such a state, it will bound to suffer in the future where other countries are doing their best to be in the top of the list in every area of specialty.

Singaporeans Mindset Is The Reason For Talent Shortage.

2008-08-11T22:33:00.001+08:00

I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in the changing of people’s mindset. Singaporeans have a very narrow mindset in my opinion. They are not open to what is around them and rarely see things in multiple or broader perspectives. This leads to problems such as talent shortage.

One issue would be the viewing of certain types of talents as superior to others. For instance people believe that being a doctor is superior to being an architect. Thus many parents send their children to learn medicine, leaving very few students in other fields such as architecture. This leads to a shortage in talent in such fields and with a lack of such talents a country will not be able to function well as it does not have enough of a talent range.

Another issue would be that, Singaporeans fail to realize or explore their full potential. Once they pick up a profession, they stick their mindset to just that profession. They only concentrate on it alone and judge themselves only by how well they do in that particular profession. This leads to a limited range of exposed talent among Singaporeans with much talent hidden deep inside many of them.

Moreover they believe that only a particular skill is needed for a certain profession. For instance a software engineer believes that only knowledge in software is necessary for that job. He does not realize that by having other skills he would be able to do his job better and will be more employable.

Singaporeans also see talent as something that a person is born with. Yes this is true in certain cases, but they fail to realize that talent can be nurtures with a bit of effort and an open mind. Thus, we have a limited array of talent in Singapore.

Loh explores several suggestions on how to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. Evaluate his suggestions.

2008-08-11T18:18:00.000+08:00

Loh’s article explores several suggestions, including halting the use of the term “foreign talent”, changing the policies to focus more on family cohesion, preserve buildings and to listen more to the citizens.

I do agree that the repeated use of the term “foreign talent” does lead to the locals here feel inferior to their foreign counterparts. This term has instilled into employers the mindset that foreigners are, in every ways stronger than the locals. For example, in the local film “I Not Stupid” by Jack Neo, it showed one overseas “talent” who comes to the advertising company to take up a rather senior post. Through the show, it was revealed that this foreigner held a rather low position back in his homeland, and his works were shown to be unappealing to the local context, featuring black-themed packages for a Chinese New Year product. Hence, not all foreigners who work in Singapore are talents, and while the term “foreign talent” does make the foreigners sound better, it serves to degrade the local talents, who feel inferior as compared to them.

In the article, Dr. Leong advises the authorities to focus more on instilling pro-family concepts. I agree with this suggestion. The younger generations nowadays have little patriotism spirit, mostly due to the effects of globalization and the lack of the experiences that the older generation had during the hard times of the past. Focusing on family cohesion could possibly have a much better effect in retaining local talents. The older generations are less likely to opt to live overseas as they are used to the local living conditions. By instilling pro-family values, the younger generations would then choose to follow their elders and remain in Singapore.

Dr. Leong also advised the government to retain old buildings. Even though I agree with his rationale, I feel that it is not a feasible plan. To continue Singapore’s development, it is necessary for us to replace the older buildings with newer ones. Imagine 30 years later and you still see the same old buildings every day. What impression would that give to a tourist? Singapore would probably seem like a very old country, with little development. Buildings have to change along with time. That is why en-bloc policies are necessary, to renew the old buildings. To preserve old buildings to retain local talents is thus not a feasible solution for our country.

As mentioned in the article, what makes a citizen happy is not just economic stability, but also the feeling that one is heard, and not just another puppet in the country. By listening to the citizens’ ideas, the government can gain more ideas, and understand the needs of the people. The government may not necessary know what is best for the people. Even if they do implement policies beneficial for the greater masses, they must provide the rationale for those policies.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

2008-08-11T15:05:00.001+08:00

From my views and opinions, I feel that the Singapore government slants towards using Extrinsic Motivation rather than Intrinsic Motivation towards its denizens.

This is clearly seen in the fact that it follows the Principle of Meritocracy that was created when the government first stabilized in its early stages of gaining Independence. It is no doubt that this Principle’s main aim is to voice out to the masses that Singaporeans are admitted into institutions and workplaces solely based on merit. However, there is also this small portion of this Principle that states that high-end scholarships like, A-Star Scholarships and Public Service Commission (PSC) Scholarships will be awarded to students who attain outstanding results in the Advanced-Level Examinations at the end of their Junior College Career. In my opinion, this is a form of extrinsic motivation that is being used by the Singapore Government. It produces brilliant student who work hard to gain the scholarships. Moreover, as these scholarships serve under a bond-system, these brilliant students will eventually end up working in Singapore, in which case, they are actually working to develop Singapore. Hence, this motivation that the government uses, acts as stone that kills two birds. It is able to produce students of high standards of knowledge and at the same time able to produce skilled laborers who will in turn be able to assist in developing the country further, in this 21st Century.

Another basic extrinsic motivation that is put out by the government that has not been clearly noted is the salary-system where laborers get paid for offering their services in the working world. Others may not think that this is an extrinsic motivation but in actually fact, it actually is. Will any of the laborers be willing to offer their services if they do not get paid for what they do? Obviously not. Therefore, the government specially put a price tag on their jobs. However, this price tag is for the government to pay their laborers instead of otherwise. Hence, in my views, this is another extrinsic motivation that the government has undertaken, not only in Singapore, but in each and every single country globally.

Therefore, from the evidence provided, I can safely say that the Singapore government does slant towards providing more of extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic motivation. This is evident from the various factors that I have brought up in this write-up.

Will Women Ever Enjoy The Same Rights As Men?

2008-08-11T00:30:00.002+08:00

The term women’s rights refer to the freedoms that women are entitled to and that are recognized by the society. The issue of women’s rights has always been a controversial issue especially in the area of gender equality. Women have always been given lesser rights as compared to men and this sparked many uprisings especially after the eighteenth century. Although this issue has lasted for a very long time, I feel that it is not very accurate to say that women will never enjoy the same rights as men.

The situation of women has drastically improved over the last couple of centuries. In the past, women were not allowed to hold public office; to work; to fair wages or equal pay; to own property; to education; to serve in the military or be conscripted; to enter into legal contracts etc. However, today women live in a very different world. Almost every female receives basic education, are awarded many rights that women of the past could only dream of and hold many top positions in jobs. Examples would be the wife of Singapore’s Prime Minister, Ho Ching. She is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the government-owned Temasek Holdings which is one of the most powerful firms in Southeast Asia and the Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Although even today women do not completely have all the rights that men enjoy, especially in the more rural countries, we definitely cannot deny the fact that the situation of women has improved very drastically. In my opinion, it has improved as much as it possibly can over such a short period of time. If the improvement of women’s rights continues its ascent at this rate it is very possible that women will soon achieve the bench mark of equal rights as men in the near future. Thus I feel that the notion that women will never achieve equal rights as men is not true.

Discrimination arising from stereotypes.

2008-08-10T23:20:00.002+08:00

Discrimination arising from stereotypes definitely exists in Singapore. Many types of stereotype discrimination exist in Singapore- be it the “kiasu auntie” at the market or the “mugger nerd” in school, however, I think Singaporeans generally do not display their distaste for such stereotypes in a negative manner.

Because Singapore is a racially diverse country, I think that Singaporeans are used to the different types of stereotypes created by the general public. However, I am sure that many of us do discriminate some of these stereotypes. After all, who would like to be stuck in a lift with the 'kaypoh' neighbor next door? Discrimination in Singapore may arise from the fact that many of us live around these stereotypes, and are hence sick or irritated by the day in day out interactions with the stereotype.

Take for example the stereotype of the nosey neighbor in her mid 40s who has nothing better to do but gossip. If you were a young, overworked adult in her mid 20s, you would obviously like to start your morning with a quiet, peaceful trip down the elevator rather than having to entertain the neighbor with the latest gossips, or insights of the stock market which may grant her a windfall. However, this discrimination may be unfair as not all neighbors in their mid 40s are of the same gossip queen category. We just assume that all people who fall into that age category are the same. However, are we forgetting that many senior managers who are intuitive and smart, and, possibly normal and not gossip queens are also in their mid 40s? Thus I think that Singaporeans jump to stereotyping, hence discrimination too quickly.

However, discrimination in Singapore is not very openly showcased, though we may harbor such opinions internally. We do not see public slamming of old men as molesters or children as screamy monsters. There may be the common stereotyping of Chinese workers are rude and loudmouthed, but hardly anything is done to show our displeasure. Singaporeans are generally quite tolerable of these stereotypes, and discrimination isn't much of a source of riot in Singapore.

Therefore, although discrimination arising from stereotypes exists in Singapore, it isn't that big of a deal.

Extrinsic VS Intrinsic Motivation

2008-08-10T22:48:00.001+08:00

All around the world people have become self centered, only bothering about their self interests and personal issues and not about their society. This situation is hardly any different in the context of Singapore.

The government has seen this and has widely used the method of extrinsic motivation to get things done in Singapore. For instance, in Singapore monetary or material rewards are widely used to motivate people to get certain things done. This can be seen in even areas such as child bearing. The government actually offers baby bonuses in order to “motivate” couples to have more children so that the replacement rate in Singapore’s ageing population will increase.

Extrinsic means is also used to deter people from doing certain things in Singapore. This can be seen in the area of crimes where the government imposes hefty fines and punishments to those who commit crimes in order to reduce crime rates in the country.

Although extrinsic motivation has allowed us to achieve many targets, there are negative impacts of using such means on Singaporeans. An extrinsically motivated person will work on a task even when they have little interest in it because of the anticipated satisfaction they will get from some reward. However it focuses people on the reward and not the action. The wide usage of extrinsic motivation would mean that Singaporeans would grow to become robot-like people who would not do anything unless they are given rewards. Stop giving the reward and they will stop the behavior. This may even aggravate to the point where they will demand for larger and larger amounts of incentives to do a certain thing.
Moreover Singaporeans will start losing their morals and we will start seeing less and less people being involved in areas such as social wok where material benefits are minimal.

However I agree with Ismail that intrinsic motivation can subtly in areas such as the collecting of motivation where people still do donate with a little persuasion. This hopefully should be seen more widely in Singapore.

Talent

2008-08-10T19:52:00.004+08:00

I think that all 3 talents are not present in singapore, sadly. Even if they are, they are short lived, as seen in the case of president scholars and athletes. The hype (recognition) over their achievements fade faster than they deserve to, hence this may deter one to strive to gain glory for singapore, since recognition may be one of the many reasons why one would want to achieve something.

Newton, Edison and Einstein are all famous names in the science field. The first discovered gravity, the other, light, and the last, the infamous equation, E=MC^2. Then comes the singaporean who created glowing fishes. What was HIS name again? I truely believe less than 1 percent of the population knows about him. Why is this so? Is it because singapore doesn't celebrate his achievements, or is it just because singapore doesn't think it's much of an achievement? I believe it's a combination of both. Firstly, the newspaper column featuring his invention barely made it a front page news. Secondly, it was mentioned probably less than 5 times as it wasn't as big an invention as light was. Thus, this may be one of the deterrences for singaporeans to ever achieve anything great, as their efforts go largely unnoticed.

Then comes the issue of space. Students here are usually under alot of stress and pressure, especially from their parents, to do well. It is common for students to be studying even on weekends- a rare sight in other countries. This would give one the impression that if he or she were to do well in school, it would be even worse if they over achieved and entered the global arena. Also, many scholarships tie the students to the goverment and do not consider the aspirations of these students. For example, many scholars have a contract where they are tied down to the sponsor company, and this prevents them from pursuing their aspirations. Thus, space is not an incentive for achievements.

Lastly, soul is hardly present. Singapore lacks the countryside aura to allow for relaxation time, or for one to nurture their peace of mind. Sure, we have spas and country clubs, but who attends these spas? The affluent and famous, of course. Heaven forbid you should meet your boss at the spa. It would definitely turn a time of peace and quiet into one that would kill your weekend.
As such, all 3 requirements are lacking in singapore, accounting for the lack of obvious talents.

Extrinsic motivation in Singapore

2008-08-10T19:32:00.002+08:00

In Singapore, I think extrinsic motivation is largely employed to control its citizens. As stated in JiaHao’s post, Singapore is often referred to by its citizens as a “fine” country, fine here being a sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense. It is evident in daily life, these fines. We have fines for littering, vandalism, illegal parking and even eating on public transport systems. Judging by the clean streets of Singapore, and the odorless transport system, it is evident that these fines do work, and they work well. Besides using money to ensure the law is abided by, Singapore has also used money to motivate its athletes to do well in the international arena. The Multi-Million Dollar Awards Programme provides a cash payout to athletes who win gold medals at the Olympic, Asian, Commonwealth and South East Asian Games. However, there may be implications involved.

Although the fines work, youths do not really reap its benefits. For example public “adult grounds” such as coffeehouses and shopping centers are free of vandalism and litter, but visit any school or youth spot in Singapore and the place would be littered and spotted with paint and graffiti. Even school tables are not spared as students draw on them during lessons with markers. Extrinsic motivation thus does not apply to youths. This asks one to think about the effectiveness of the fine system in Singapore. I think that students litter and vandalize freely in their schools as there are no fine systems in school, and the chances of getting caught are rare. Thus, extrinsic fine systems in Singapore are ineffective, as it only induces fear in a person, instead of actually motivating a person to steer away from undesired behavior.

Extrinsic motivation in the athletic arena may be a good thing, as It would definitely encourage low-wage athletes to strive harder. Lee Jia Wei, a table tennis player, has even managed to play to a 4th place finish at the Athens Olympics in 2004, a commendable effort, obviously. Thus, extrinsic motivation in the sporting arena, where no moral values are involved, reap more benefits.

Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore? Appln. Qn 2

2008-08-10T15:19:00.001+08:00

Stereotypes, in our modern day context are just a group of people with unique abilities of some sort. These stereotypes can be related to anything under the sun. Race, religion, colour, language, attitude are a few of the many stereotypes that have been brought up in recent times. When relating this to our country, Singapore, it is apparent that such discriminations arising from stereotypes are not a common sight. However, one cannot immediately jump into a conclusion in stating that there is clearly no discrimination arising from stereotypes in Singapore. Truly speaking, as long as there are differences amongst certain groups of people in a society, there is bound to be such discriminations.

If one is to say that Singapore is a great country where every citizen lives united with one another, bearing in mind social cohesiveness and the list of laws governed by an uncorrupted government, the only person that may believe this assumption is a Singaporean himself. A foreigner on the other hand, will not spare a thought in actually believing this. It’s merely a fairytale story to him. It is thereby obvious that it is impossible to create that dream country where everything goes well and there is no more room for improvement. Hence, I agree that discrimination arising from stereotypes do exist in Singapore.

Race/Religion is one of the main factors that led me to such a conclusion. In our multi-racial society, there is still this small group of people who feel that Indians and Malays are a class of their own and in which case, the Chinese have the upper hand in making every decision in this country. These groups of people have been termed as “racists”. They create this stereotype in our innocent minds that Indians and Malays are not true Singaporeans merely because of their skin colour. Basically, they are not “white”. Well, such stereotypes are created for the sake of expressing certain opinions and differences that we Singaporeans have within our society. However, these are the opinions that are best kept a secret rather than flaunting it out to the masses and just sparking off more problems. A clear example to this is the recent case where a Racist blogger who happens to be Chinese, expressed his sensitive views towards the Malay population on his blog. The racist blogger was then brought to court for making such racist remarks. This shows that there is still discrimination arising from stereotypes occurring in Singapore.

Another fundamental factor to prove that this issue still stands in Singapore is the stereotyping of students from top notch schools and institutions of being geniuses and child protégées since young. Students, who are streamed into schools of lower status as compared to these institutions, immediately feel a sense of hatred and anger towards the “geniuses” of the lot, arising from mere inferiority complex. The stereotyping of these individuals as “geniuses” makes the remaining group of students seem unwanted and useless. Thereafter, there comes a point where these students drop out of schools and take the wrong paths in life to turn into criminals rather than leaders of the future. These students feel that there is no use spending so much time in their academic work, as ultimately the “geniuses” will be the ones who attain scholarships, recognition from higher authorities like the Ministry, and a well-to-do life. Moreover, clashes may even occur between these two groups of students over reasons that are pointless. In the end, due to stereotyping, not just one party suffers but the whole lot suffers too.

Hence, from the above examples I have clearly shown that discrimination arising from stereotypes will always happen unless stereotypes are not formed in the first place. This subject is evident in Singapore itself, when touching on issues such as race and the area of academics. Therefore, I reinforce the fact again, that stereotypes will exist as long as there are differences in the views of groups of people. Moreover, as long as these stereotypes exist, discrimination will be apparent.

Does discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore? - App. Qn 2

2008-08-10T12:11:00.001+08:00

I do agree that discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore as well. Discrimination, in my opinion results from our ability to judge people, be it according to their capabilities, race, gender religion or any other notable differences. Discrimination according to capabilities is regarded as meritocracy, and considered as a legal form of discrimination. However, to accurately gauge a person’s ability in work or studies is not an easy task- there is no clear reflection of how capable a person may be. Hence, we often consider people with a certain type of undesirable traits or behavior as being incapable, resulting in stereotyping of such people.
As mentioned in the second article, those students seated in the back rows are regarded to have attitude problems, and thought to be incapable in schoolwork. This is common in Singapore as well. However, these students would be regarded as talkative, and to get their attention in class, teachers would be more likely to call on them. In contrast, those seated in the front are often regarded as smart, and wise, hardworking students. Thus teachers are less likely to pay much attention to them. In my own experience, however, this might not be the case. I have seen hardworking students seated in the back rows before, and they are attentive and participates actively in class, and also seen those in the front rows, sleeping away without any disturbances. Thus, discrimination arising from stereotypes do exist in Singapore as well.
In Singapore, where there is the situation of an aging population, age is very closely linked to work efficiency. When two people of the same qualifications, but different age, where the older one has more working experience, goes for a job interview, the younger one is more likely to get recruited. Why? This is because people often think that the older workers are not as productive as the younger ones, and will demand higher pay, hence they are discriminated. However, this may not be the case. Older workers are more efficient at the tasks they have been at for years, and may not necessarily demand higher pay than their younger counterparts. Furthermore, the younger workers are more likely to switch jobs once their passion dies down, while the older workers would be more dedicated to their jobs.
The above examples shows how discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore, even without us consciously knowing.
-Jia Hao

There is no case for "affirmative action" in SIngapore today

2008-08-10T10:44:00.002+08:00

Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. We have come to respect and tolerate each other. We are now seeing each other as fellow Singaporeans instead of members of different races living together in the same space. After 43 years on our own, we ask ourselves have we done enough to prevent racial discrimination?

We have made improvements in our education system to ensure that cases like university of California regents v Bakke do not take place in Singapore. Local universities make it a point to not outrightly reject candidates on racial grounds. We have made sure that we all take the pledge together, to ensure a sense of equality, we are encouraged to live in flats with different races, we all wear uniforms to school, so uniform that the head-scarf is banned from use in school. All if us have a common English-Medium curriculum. We are all allowed our own prayer. In these ways, we have almost perfected the system. We essentially give every child an equal shot at studies.

This is valid all through the university stage, but it ends when the student becomes an adult and enters the work-force. When one enters the work-force, they are forced to become part of the intricate web of politics that makes up the working environment. In this case, it is impossible to prevent any discrimination from occurring. However, it is all a part of life. Even in advertisements for jobs, there are lines like "non-chinese applicants need not apply," which is a politically correct way of saying the job is only for chinese. The job may have a special requirement, so that is fine. We cannot intend to stop discrimination completely, it is a part of life. At the same time, we cannot make it turn the other way, and make the majority suffer just because they are the majority. As such, there is no case for "affirmative action" in Singapore.

Intrinsic motivation in Singapore

2008-08-10T10:17:00.004+08:00

As the song goes, "in Singapore, our hearts are big and wide you'll find." Singaporeans do have a heart, and are quite understanding when it comes to matters of the heart. As Asians, we are regarded as being a bunch of hard-working and unforgiving individuals that come together only for self-preservation. We have shattered that stereotype by donating for just about everything. Anytime a person steps up to us with a donation can in their hand and asks us for donations, they do not ask for donations by saying we can get tax rebates. They tell us the name of the foundation and what the foundation is using the money for. This generally tugs the correct heart strings, forcing us to pull out our wallets and at the very least, drop a few coins in the can.

In a similar situation, one of my friends was walking with a drink when approached by a student collecting donations for a foundation. When he said he didn't want to donate, she said that if he had the money to purchase a drink, he should donate. And sure enough, he did donate. This shows how there is subtle intrinsic motivation in Singapore. The use of extrinsic motivation in Singapore has to a large extent been unsuccessful. The government's attempt to reverse the trend of a decreasing population by offering a baby bonus has not been successful. The reason? The Singaporean society retains some of its morals. Singaporeans are not simpletons, we think things over. When we are offered an incentive, a monetary one at that, we think if we are doing the act for the benefit of society or for their own. By having a child simply for the baby bonus, one is doing it for a selfish aim, and as such, they have not been successful.

As Jia Hao has said, the use of extrinsic motivation is present in terms of petty crimes. But, they are seldom enforced, and are not harsh on the criminal. They simply serve to label the person as a criminal or to show the person that what they have done is not correct. It is through this that the person is forced to ponder over what he has done, and think over his life. When seen in this way, the fines imposed can be viewed as intrinsic motivation to not do something that would not benefit them or the society.

Do the past and present offer any guidance to the future?

2008-08-10T09:22:00.002+08:00

"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift, that's why its called the present." We have always seen the past as history, and as something to learn from. Only by looking into the past can we see the future, as they say. When we look back into the past, we see many things that we have done wrong that can be corrected if we tried. To ensure that our future is not marred by poor decisions made by people not fully aware of the situation, we need to look at the past for guidance.

One thing that has changed from the past is our interpretation of what a secular state is. In the past, a secular state was seen as a group of "non-believers" looking to make the world a place that has no belief. Now, we have adopted a more rational approach: a nation that respects all religions equally, and does not discriminate based on religion. The adoption of secularism at the state level seems to now be a very pragmatic move that many have made. Why? Thanks to the countless lives lost due to misunderstandings between people of different religions. From the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War to the Maria Hertogh riots. People have seen religion as a way to divide themselves. They would fight for a lost cause if it was for their religion. To avoid such bloodshed, all people should be given the basic right of practicing their religion. The people of the world have seen this as being a good idea to the extent that they have made religious practice a human right.

We have made changes for the better that we are enjoying now, but how can we further improve our ways, and make the future an even brighter one? One way is to make the whole world see secular state as meaning the same thing. Religion should not be given a major role to play in politics. We could find ourselves in a sticky situation if we depend on religion as a campaigning method. What if the candidate elected by a majority of Christians, whose votes he campaigned for in Chuches, was found to be gay? What would the voters do? What would the country do? There would be chaos, with people wanting to overthrow the whole government! To avoid such situations and keep an open mind toward the governing of the state, we should disallow the use of religion as a campaigning chip.

Human rights are Universal

2008-08-10T09:02:00.004+08:00

Human rights are universal, and should be under no condition violated. Human rights, as the term suggests governs the way one human should behave towards another. Ever since man has been a civilised creature, he has drawn lines for how far one can be mistreated. Only under tyrants or misguided thoughts have we been known to violate each other. In today's world, we see each other as equals, or we should at least. We treat each other with a level of respect. Even the employer treats the employee with a level of respect. In a similar way, the people of Singapore are given the right to practice their own beliefs as long as they are acceptable to the fact that everyone is not of the same lineage, or religion. This is a good example of how secular states like Singapore see human rights as universal.

The interpretation of human rights as a way to properly treat another human is the only way that we can make human rights universal. Through extreme views taken on human rights, we will not be able to have a more fuller, and functional country. It is necessary that we look at this from a rational point of view. In order for the nation to prosper, we need to prevent some things that some champions of human rights see as a right. One example is freedom of speech. Although it is vital that we express ourselves, our views need not always be socially beneficial. In order to prevent such unnecessary "hooliganism" and promote a "rebel" behaviour, we can censor a small minority of the views put out by people. This will help the whole country to move along as a whole, and prevent us from becoming a backward country due to unnecessary excess of freedom of speech given to those that may abuse it.

Countries should never get involved in the internal affairs of another

2008-08-10T08:24:00.002+08:00

Countries should not ever, not under any circumstances, get involved in the internal affairs of another. It is very important that they do this, since it could be the only way to push the whole world in the correct direction. Instead of taking orders from men who have blown-up ideas that their methods are superior to the methods that other countries take in the governing of their nation, we should let the others see which is the best way. By doing so, the country that is seen as not having a proper way of doing things can have a chance to change its ways, and the country that sees its method as superior can truly see if its method is superior.

Countries that poke their noses in the business of others have, generally, made the situation worse. Let us look at the invasion of Iraq by USA. USA wanted to "liberate the people of Iraq" from the rule of Saddam. That seems like a similar reason given by our Japanese peers when they massacred the Asian continent. That aside, are the Iraqis free from the rule of a "tyrant" and now free to roam the country? There are bomb blasts everywhere, with almost none that affect the locals making the news. Is the Iraqi economy blossoming now that the people of Iraq have been freed from the shackles of a tyrant? Who are the ones burning the oil fields? The "tyrant", or the "liberators"?

It is unfortunate but true that some countries need to be ruled the way they are. The morals of the people in the country determine the type of government they need. We cannot judge a group of people by looking on from the outside, we need to let them see that the system we use is better. Only through this will they change willingly, with more effort, and only then will there be results that are for the better of the world.

Hui Min suggests that the governments of other countries should be allowed to stand up against the judiciary system which does not give the people governed by it to speak up. This analogy is invalid! It is similar to asking your neighbour to help you discuss your ED problems with your wife! There are some things that simply need to be sorted out by themselves, and such affairs need to be left alone.

Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think

2008-08-01T22:58:00.000+08:00

In Singapore, extrinsic motivation is used largely. This is shown by the common joke that Singapore is a “fine” city, the “fine” not only saying that Singapore is a great country to visit, but also to show that almost all crimes results in monetary punishments.
Although extrinsic motivation is predominant in Singapore as compared to intrinsic motivation, I feel that there has been more positive impacts on the Singapore society than negative ones.
The negative impacts on Singaporeans is that people avoid committing petty crimes such as littering and vandalising only when there are members of the law present, or when there are surveillance cameras around as in the case of speeding of vehicles on roads. People do not regard littering as an act morally wrong, but regard it as something common, that everyone does, such that even when the Singapore government began using intrinsic motivations such as using posters and banners to urge people not to litter, there has been little effects. Vandalism too, has taken roots as habits among the younger generations of Singapore. In schools, the tables are often vandalised, not by accidental scratch marks, but by pencil and ink markings of mathematical formulas and various nonsensical messages. This shows the lack of awareness of moral wrongness in Singapore due to over use of extrinsic motivations.
Despite the negative impacts as listed above, Singapore has managed to ensure a certain degree of success in ensuring the cleanliness of its environment and the safety of the roads. For example, up until now, Singapore still enjoys the reputation of being a “green city”, and still a wonderful place to visit and regarded as one of the cleanest cities in the world. The streets of Singapore are also relatively safe and traffic accident rates are kept low as a result of the punishments of speeding such as summons and demerit points system which could eventually results in the suspension of driving licenses.
In Singapore, the people are also still regarded as kind and generous as shown during the many charity shows in the past few years. Each show generated millions of dollars, and such compassion extends even to foreign countries. In the Szechuan earthquake crisis, Singapore donated more than 8.5 million US dollars in private donations only. This shows that Singaporeans are still largely motivated by selfless desires despite the predominance of extrinsic motivations in Singapore.
Hence, the positive impacts of the predominance of extrinsic motivations surpass the negative impacts of the extrinsic motivations in Singapore.

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

2008-07-27T22:31:00.001+08:00

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)

2008-07-26T22:09:00.000+08:00

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?

2008-07-26T01:02:00.003+08:00

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.

2008-07-19T22:40:00.000+08:00

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

2008-07-19T18:41:00.002+08:00

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

2008-07-19T17:37:00.001+08:00

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.

2008-07-19T11:16:00.003+08:00

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?

2008-07-13T15:12:00.001+08:00

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?

2008-07-12T16:41:00.000+08:00

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?

2008-07-12T15:35:00.002+08:00

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.

2008-07-10T19:47:00.001+08:00

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.

Education has failed to make people educated. Do you agree that this is true for the people in your country.

2008-06-29T21:13:00.003+08:00

Education as we all see it has been placed forth for us to supply us with the various types of information that one requires, not only in his education lifestyle but also for this future. In doing so, it not only educates a person academically, but also in a social manner where it helps to build a better person for the future ahead. Therefore, by looking at this point on whether education has failed to make people educated, I will be focusing mainly on whether it has educated one socially rather than academically. Hence, this statement is apparent for the people of my country and I can agree on the point that education has failed in his proper duties.

Crimes, vices and other socially undesirable activities are some examples to show how education has failed in his duties clearly. Through the process of gaining knowledge via education, each person naturally begins to become more confident of himself, determined, socially and morally upright and becomes a better person than he already is. However, due to the presence of such heinous activities, it has shown that education has failed to educate some of these people involved in such activities.

Through the days, various incidents have taken place which showcases certain adolescents who take up certain bad habits such as drugs, smoking or even to join a gang. Many people immediately pinpoint their parents to be the cause of their negative outcomes. However, has any one actually put a thought to whether the child’s education also played a part in his behavior? No. Hence, when dwelling deeper into this issue, it can be seen that education has failed in educating these people, not to choose the wrong paths in their lives. Subjects like “Civics and Moral education” have been implemented in the new curriculum in schools for a reason. Why then do we still see students are not morally upright? Education, in this case, has yet again failed to educate these youngsters.

Therefore, I reiterate my point that education has indeed failed in educating people and these specific groups of people can be seen around in my country. Education is a commodity that everyone can and must use to their fullest potential, It’s an opportunity for people to have a fresh start in their lives, or it can also help to change their lives for the better.

Is Formal Education over valued?

2008-06-28T21:37:00.002+08:00

Formal education is necessary, but the over-emphasis on it by society today has resulted in my believing that formal education is indeed over valued. This problem is observed most clearly in Asian counties. There is so much emphasis placed on formal education that the students who undergo it are seen as a second priority. The students are seen as "dustbins" where knowledge can be dumped, as put in the second article. There is a severe lack of emphasis and society under values the importance of social skills. Formal education only gives students a set of things to know, not how to use them or when to use which one. Some of the unfortunate ones cannot even absorb this knowledge! The importance, and value that society has placed on this type of knowledge, on formal education is clearly beyond the socially optimal level. This is showing by the rising number of drop-outs and suicides caused by the rigid formal education system that society forces the students to undergo.

As said in the articles, although Asian students show a deeper understanding of Arithmetic and Science, they do not retain the knowledge they have gained on these topics after they leave the examination hall. The students do not have the "spark" in their eyes, "the eye of the tiger!" They are now simply going through the system because they have to, not because they enjoy it. The students who actually like a subject, or the rare student who has an affinity and liking for two subjects, are forced to make themselves more like others in the system, forcing them to focus on subjects they are not interested in. This is, as highlighted in the second article, one of the fatal flaws of the formal, mass education system. The system that we so love, has cut down the number of young, creative minds and created a nation of "worker bees," those who do "the rest of the jobs." By restricting a child, and causing him or her to become like the rest, we are destroying the potential of the child and those he is trying to become like. Since they all want to become educated to the same level, they are all the same, and have no value essentially. By not recognizing the loss it has brought to us, and still thinking it is the best way to get a good job, we have effectively over valued a flawed system, the formal education system.

“The main function of education should be to enable people to gain employment” Do you agree?

2008-06-26T23:15:00.002+08:00

I do not agree that the main function of education should be to enable people to gain employment. Education teaches the students the general knowledge and skills such as social skills to enable them to survive in society when they graduate from their respective institutions. The students are also expected to learn moral values such as respect for the elders, which includes teachers and parents. To enable the people to gain employment should not be seen as the main function of education.
“The most important function of education at any level is to develop the personality of the individual and the significance of his life to himself and to others. This is the basic architecture of a life; the rest is ornamentation and decoration of the structure."- Grayson Kirk
As seen from this quote, the main function of education is to develop one’s personality and his significance. It is not simply to aid one in finding employment. However, education degrees has been used by several companies and employers as a basic guideline to gauge a person’s competence, hence the common misconception that education serves to help people gain employment. As such, I cannot deny that there are indeed quite a lot of students who pursue education just to increase their chances of finding employment.
Another function of education may be seen as political, by the government to instil certain forms of thinking or knowledge into the younger generation of the population. An example is the case of education in Nazi Germany, where education was used by the Nazi’s to ensure control over the people’s minds. For example, students were instilled the concepts of blood purity, and discrimination against non-Aryans. In this case, the main function of education was surely not to enable people to gain employment, but rather for political uses by the government in population control.

EDUCATION DOES NOT DEVELOP INDUVIDUALITY BUT CONFORMITY

2008-06-26T22:09:00.002+08:00

Education today develops conformity rather than individuality in most cases.

Most of our formal education period is spent on what to learn and in what standard format to learn. There is often a specific syllabus that encompasses what we have to learn during a specified period of time and standard steps to how what is to be covered is learned and this includes even teaching methods. Examples include subjects such as mathematics which where students have to learn a certain number of topics, have to learn standard problem solving methods and teachers have specific teaching methods in most cases.

Our formal education system also includes standards that require us to pass common examinations in order to proceed to a higher level in education. Many schools even have certain compulsory subjects which students are forced to take up regardless of their interest in the subject.
All these clearly exemplify the conformity that education emphasizes. By setting such standard procedures and methods in education, a student is hindered from developing his own thinking, creativity and individuality. Every student that is subject to such an education system is molded to think in a particular manner with hardly any room for varying perspectives. Thus most of these students grow up more to be followers of existing systems and do not try to revolutionalize and think of more creative and better methods.

However, in certain cases, education develops individuality. The educational system nowadays is increasingly incorporating features such as leadership development of students through various methods such as co-curricular activities and leadership camps and workshop. All these help to teach students how to think as leaders and develop their individual leadership potentials. For instance, in co-curricular activities such as uniform groups, leaders are appointed and these leaders learn how to deal with different issues such as conflicts among members and learning to make full use of what you have.

Thus, to a large extent education does develop conformity.

Do you think there is a need for change in the educational system in your country?

2008-05-26T13:49:00.002+08:00

The education system in Singapore is one that very much follows that of British system. In fact, our “A” and “O” level examinations are still from Cambridge. In Singapore, students learn a main language- English-and their mother tongues as the second language. A variety of subjects such as math, science and arts are also introduced to the students in their early years. The syllabus we follow is similar to that of England’s, reason being we want to keep our standards similar to that of England’s and the rest of the world.

I think the reason for the system to be of this nature is practical and logical. Firstly, Singapore is a multi racial country. It would be impossible for every one of us to learn all the languages of the four main groups. Also, adopting only one language as the official language would be unfair and may cause racial riots. Secondly Singapore, being a small country, does not have the power or capability to assert that people who want to communicate with it must learn its language. This is unlike Japan or China, where foreigners have to learn their language. Thus, to ensure effective communication between Singapore and the rest of the world, English was chosen, and the British educational system was adopted to ensure that our standards were up to mark with that of the world’s, since England is a very influential country.

However, a few changes to the system would be beneficial.

First of all, the original British education system was set up to create workers. Although Singapore has made changes to it over the years, by and large, the aim of the system still holds. Education in Singapore still remains very much a system of preparing people for the workforce. Even though this is a practical aim, it is flawed in many ways. Students nowadays view education only as a mean of getting certificates of proficiency and then securing a job in the industry. Education, it seems, is only about being able to live a good life at the end of the day. What happens is that although this is not the aim of the government, students often think it is, and School has turned into a place not for learning, but for competition. Students try to outdo each other and hopefully turn out to be the crème de la crème so that they may secure the best of jobs and live a smooth sailing life. Palto, who lived more than two thousand years ago, wrote that education was a lifelong endeavour. The perspective that students have here is that education stop after graduation.

Education in Singapore encourages conformity, generally. It does not allow enough individual expression, as much of the British system is based on teamwork. Perhaps that explains why Britain has produced fewer scientists and better soldiers. The American system, however, caters more to individual learning and has created more scientists and contributed more to the world than any other system. Bill Gates and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, both individuals in the education system, show how American education stimulates individuality, although it has the disadvantage of weakening the group.

A good education system would be a blend of the best systems in the world. Drastic changes are not required, since the brand of Singapore education is one envied by many. We produce results, as seen in the case of Raffles being an “Ivy League Machine”. Refinements are needed to strengthen the needs of individuals, and little emphasis should be placed on education being a quest for jobs.

It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts-do you agree?

2008-05-10T16:33:00.003+08:00

I disagree that it is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. However, it is also incorrect to say that it is extremely easy to achieve it. When there is an "income divide" between the people of the world, how can they all possibly focus on something like the environment, which does not fulfill their basic necessities directly? When there are people dying of starvation in some countries, and when there are people in other countries facing obesity problems, how is is possible that the leaders from both nations can reach a consensus on anything, let alone the environment. In such cases where countries are unable to look at an issue from one point of view, as in the case of the environment, there must be some "middle-man" to allow both countries to look at the issue and understand how they can both benefit from it. In this case, we have the UN. With the UN, assuming it plays its role the way we think it is(the good guy way), then no nation will have a problem seeing how the saving of the environment benefits them, making the arriving at a consensus on environmental conservation efforts easy.

To reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts would be to get a perfect collaborative effort from all the nations of the world, including those not in the UN, that would ultimately lead to the saving of the environment. One example of how the countries of the world have tried and failed to achieve this, is the Kyoto Protocol. In this case, many developing countries and some of the largest carbon emitters of the world, USA, were not included. Without these countries, as he article on the Kyoto Protocol points out, the Kyoto Protocol could not even matter, let alone make a difference. Instead, had these countries all come together and tried to look at the most feasible way to change the downward trend that the environment is taking, the world could have turned out a very different place, despite the short time period. This is not impossible to achieve, and given that we have achieved the Kyoto Protocol, we could achieve this with a little more planning and a bit of understanding on the part of the countries of the world.

Also, if we achieved a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts, then everyone will be reducing their carbon footprint, and what Jia Hao said in his post is no longer valid. This is because he has taken a very pessimistic view that no matter what he does as an individual, he is not decreasing the carbon emissions of the world in general. This is not true! If everyone did their part, then we would be on our way to achieving the goal of less than 1.2. tonnes of carbon per person per year!

The Current Hype Over Environmental Issues Is Unnecessary. Do You Agree?

2008-05-09T21:29:00.002+08:00

I feel that the current hype over environmental issues is necessary. Environmental problems have become a major issue in our world today with global warming and pollution becoming more and more widespread, threatening the very existence of our dear planet. These problems are mainly attributed to the actions of careless, selfish and ignorant people who do not think about or know about the consequences of their actions. Thus little is being done to curb this problem.

This is why the hype over environmental issues must come into play. Currently, we see that only few people whom are aware of the causes of and consequences of environmental problems are taking actions to save our planet. Even out of those whom are aware, many have the ‘why bother?’ toward environmental issues making the attempts of those people insignificant as only if the planet works as a whole can we create a significant enough impact. The current hype will help to create greater awareness among people in terms of environmental issues and the need to solve them. Thus more and more people would start acting more environmental consciously and spread the movement to other people they know.

Moreover, the current hype will also prompt relevant authorities to take action. An example would be the montreal protocol in Canada and the Kyoto protocol in Japan. These were the result of the awareness and the hype over environmental issues in the past and have had many positive effects such as the significant reduction of CO2 and ozone depleting substances such as CFCs in many countries, Without the montreal protocol, the release of CFCs would have increased by ten fold leading to much higher incidence rates of skin cancers and eye cataracts. Thus with the hype, authorities would be prompted into such actions and this is vital as the authority has much power and is one of the few entities that can ensure implementation of environmental solutions in society.

In response to Huimin’s post, I agree that much has to be done to educate youths about environmental issues and encourage them to be pro-environment. I feel that it would be easier to inculcate this into youths as compared to adults who would generally be more rigid–minded and difficult to change. Moreover when we inculcate pro-environmentalism in people at a young age it is likely that they would continue to be pro-environment in the future and being the future leaders would be more involved in the process of saving our environment.

The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary-Do you agree?

2008-05-07T23:28:00.002+08:00

When speaking about the environment and issues concerning it, one has to look at it in deeper details rather than just a general overview. Apparently, it is also known, that in recent times, the environmental issues have stirred up much controversies and in so doing, has formed a global debate amongst countries as to whether the ongoing hype over environmental issues is imperative or not. In my opinion, I feel that the current hype is necessary. In real life scenario, its degree of importance is way more than just necessary itself. It is more like a must.

Many issues have been related to the environment, such as the current effects of global warming and the levels of carbon emissions in various countries. These issues are the main cause of the recent hype. They have sparked off questions from various opposing parties but still, no one has yet to come up with a sensible conclusion. In this era of the 21st Century, we must understand that it is no longer “I” but more like “Us”. It is true that every one person can make a difference in decreasing the harsh effects of Global Warming. However, what is the use if you are the only one, out a population of 6.6 billion people, who is practicing energy conservative methods, shifting your lifestyle to more of a “green” one and most importantly, caring for the environment. In the end, it is the contribution from every person in the world that will help to save this planet for future generations to come.

Moreover, referring to the article on “Saving the World”, it was stated in the passage, that certain statistics by the environmentalists are actually wrong or mostly unreliable. This is shown by the numerical data of the number of polar bears. All long, environmentalists have been telling us that due to global warming the existence of polar bears is at stake. However, actual statistics actually shows that the population number of the polar bears actually increased. This has brought up another issue, that gets us thinking as to whether the facts we hear are true or not.
Referring to Hui Min’s blog post on the same topic, I would like to comment on one of her views. This is regarding the fact that she said, in today’s world, we are breeding a generation of ignorant youths. This statement may not be completely true. In Addition, I feel that the youths of today are actually more aware of the environment than the youths of the past. It is this group of people that are involved in the formation of most “Green environmentalist” groups. An example is the formation of a few groups under the ECO (Environmental Challenge Organization) in Singapore. This shows that youths of today are actually more involved in caring for the environment, and take the extra step in doing so.

Therefore, I conclude my post, by reiterating the point that, it is necessary for the current hype over environmental issues today, as it will further broaden the perspective of the issue, which will then make space for more opinions that may end up saving the environment for the better in the long run.

The current hype over environmental issues is unecessary- do you agree?

2008-05-07T20:51:00.003+08:00

I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. With rising temperatures and increased health problems such as skin cancer, the need for concern over such issues pertaining to the environment is much greater than ever.

Although there is much to be clarified about the current information out there regarding the effects of environmental changes- as much information is being distorted to scare people and thus gain support for pro- environmental issues- we cannot ignore the fact that something bad is happening to earth, though it may be happening at a slower rate. Take for example the topics covered in the article ‘The truth about the environment’. Much of the information regarding the detrimental effects on the environment is questioned. Although scientists claim that the earth is running out of food, the truth is that more people are getting fed, and also less people starve. However, we cannot disregard the need for environmental conservation solely based on these minor facts. We are facing an even bigger problem; one that will continue is a downward spiral if we do not do anything about it. The earth needs saving and we have to realise it before it is too late.

Yes, although the earth may be deteriorating at a slower rate than perceived, we cannot just dismiss the idea of going green to save the earth. Think about it. If we do not start cutting down on our carbon emissions now, the earth would have even more carbon in the atmosphere 50 years from now than if we had decided to cut down our emissions initially. Although it may not affect us, future generations would be affected and they would have to bear the brunt of our selfish actions. Let’s say we continue to be indifferent and continue releasing as much carbon into the air as we want to. 1000 years from now, the world may be too hot for any living thing, except maybe the cactuses in the desert. To ensure the survival of mankind, we must do something now, and even more should be done to promote pro-environmental actions. Thus, the Montreal protocol is necessary and relevant. It has saved mankind of 20 million cases of skin cancer and many other devastating effects.

In present society, where we are breeding a generation of ignorant youths, the need to create awareness on environmental issues is bigger than ever. We have to educate them on the state of the earth and make a big deal out of it so as to ensure that something will be done. Thus, the hype is more than necessary- It is essential.

It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. Do you agree?

2008-05-07T20:25:00.003+08:00

I do agree it is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. In countries of poverty, environmental conservation is an idea that only the rich think about. Think about it. If you have problems feeding yourself to three meals a day, would you have the time or the energy to think about saving the environment? Similarly, poorer or developing countries have their priorities set on improving their quality of life, and as seen from the graph of London's air pollution in the article, “The truth about the environment”, developing countries first have to undergo a stage whereby pollution will reach its highest peak. The most convenient way for countries to develop happen to go against the idea of environmental conservation.
In the case of the article, “The way we live now. Why bother?” The author states down the idea that even if he chose to go totally green, changing his lifestyle right from the roots, there are still others who produces enough carbon to replace what the author’s green lifestyle saves. Hence, no matter what one does, the effect on the whole global world is in fact very insignificant. What we enjoy now may not be enjoyed in other countries. While we have enjoyed years of internet access, people in other countries may have just started enjoying their first internet experience. Similarly, while we have taken buses and cars to work every day for the past decades, people in other countries may have just started having buses as a form of transport. Who are we to tell them that the buses they ride in contribute to global warming and that they should revert back to the most primitive forms of transport? As seen from these, the rate at which society advances determine how ready the people are to accept environmental conservation ideas. Developed countries thus have to take the initiative so that developing or undeveloped countries may follow in its footsteps in the future.
Everyone enjoys the benefits of a greener earth. But who is the one doing the work? Assuming a country decides to go green, totally. Laws are set to switch all petroleum-based cars to hybrids, and all houses are to be fitted with black solar panels to generate their own energy. The neighbouring countries too enjoy the benefits without having to spend a single dollar. Given the high costs of environmental conservation efforts such as the Kyoto protocol, countries would be reluctant to do their part in environmental conservation. Different countries will also have different abilities in their environmental conservation efforts. Countries will then strive to enjoy the greatest benefits while spending the minimal effort, leading to conflicts among the different countries which feel unfairly treated. Thus it would be impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts.

Globalization and domination of Sports

2008-05-03T18:33:00.002+08:00

As the author put it, this is the age of Sport. Everyone is involved in it. People of all age groups, all genders, all races and religions are interested in sport. Any form of sport, competitive or not, is seen as a sport. As such, everyone wants to be involved in it. It is true that, in the years before modern culture, sport was a "niche," and as the author put it, a big niche, but a niche nonetheless. This is true, and for a long time, people also did not see sport as a part of their lives, but simply an action, something they went through for the sake of it.

People are also more interested in being healthy, and health involves some form of work. This has also lead to the domination of sport. Sports are now seen as a way of making oneself healthier. People are therefore more encouraged to work out, and the easiest way to work up a sweat is obviously football, or any other form of sport for that matter. Since health is being seen, increasingly, as a necessity, the method of obtaining it in a fun and easy way is seen as being valuable and is hence more dominant. Sport is also regarded as an art form by many, and rightfully so. Sport allows us to explore all our emotions, utilize our body for a "higher goal."

Sport also gives people a sense of belonging. Since people both participate in and watch sports, they are more involved in it. As they say, "You'll never walk alone." Thus, as the author put it, you are more involved in this cultural event that is much unlike any other, since you are inclined to watch it and take part in it. The thrill of the sporting event, and the idolized players, all draw members of the public to watch the sport. All people of the world are banding together, and watching and playing sport. Hence, sport transcends cultures, religions, and language. It has become so dominant, that you could even toss a ball between two boys who are fighting and watch them turn into friends, to play a match.

These are all indications that sport has become globalized and dominant.

People Today Need To Exercise

2008-05-02T22:21:00.000+08:00

Yes, I agree with the author’s reasons as to why people want to exercise. We humans have always led active lifestyles; at least until the past century or so. Over the past century, there have been many technological breakthroughs and advancements that have impacted the world in proportions that are unimaginable. An example would be the invention of machines such as the computer. The computer, though has enabled the world to run more efficiently, has cased people to become more lazy. With the world at their fingertips, people now use the computer to do everything possible.

Therefore, people find less need to move about due to such technology and are living very much sedentary lifestyles. This sudden change in lifestyle is too drastic for the human body to adapt to. This results in problems in the form of diseases such as coronary heart disease and obesity. Moreover, people believe that there are instant cures and solutions for these diseases but fail to realize that their lifestyle is the root to all their problems and that prevention through an active lifestyle is the best root to a healthy life. Thus, to reduce such problems, people need to exercise to keep themselves fit.

There are also other reasons I feel for the need for people to exercise. People of today live in a very competitive and a stressful environment. They spend a great amount of time stuck in their offices with their eyes glued to their papers and computers and continue their ordeal at home. Thus, many people get stressed up and tensed. Exercise can be a very good stress reliever. By doing exercise, not only do they get to stretch their tensed up muscles but the exercise also helps to release endorphins which are natural stress relievers. This can help them better deal with the stress they experience. In fact, it was found that patients with major depression randomized to an exercise group had declines in depression equal to those of a group that received antidepressants. Moreover, the exercisers were less likely than the medication group to relapse six months after treatment, and patients who maintained exercise during follow-up were 50 percent less likely to become depressed than those who did not exercise.

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

2008-05-02T22:05:00.000+08:00

Torture as we all know is a very strong term used in the modern-day context. It can mean basic physical torture of even psychological torture. However, by addressing the question, the issue of whether the use of torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists is a controversial issue.

When looking into the detailed picture, the usage of torture on criminals may sound more exaggerated then when it is said to be used on terrorists. The basic so-called “qualification” to be a criminal is probably a snatch theft or robbery. In such cases, is there a need to use torture to suck out the truth from these “criminals”? In my opinion, I would obviously disagree to the point. No one in the world has the right to harm others for their own good. In this case, using torture against these criminals is just a way to attain a specific truth out of these people for the authorities’ own good. Hence this is rightfully wrong and should not be practiced.

However, some may pull out their own side of their stories by stating the various incidents that have occurred that crushed the lives of many innocent people, by certain selfish terrorist groups. Hence, in doing so, the usage of torture on this group of people is ethically right. This opinion, in my view is merely one that is felt through uprising emotions in the affected people. In the fit of anger and hatred, they hope that the perpetrators will get punished rightfully for their mistakes and if these people are not cooperative with the officials, then the usage of torture must be implemented promptly. A clear example was the September 9/11 attacks that occurred in the US. This incident apparently trampled many innocent lives and stirred up much feeling in their loved ones that they would do anything to ensure that terrorists involved were tortured till they admitted the truth of what actually happened.

Similarly, torture is just a means of getting the truth out of convicted personnel. However, what makes it so certain that it is the ONLY way that can be used to bring the truth to light. Has anyone asked the question of whether the convict will still remain stubborn and not let out the truth even after undergoing serious torture? In this case, what was the use of torture then? Merely to take revenge on the convict? To prove a point that the authorities have the most power? If not then what exactly is it?

Therefore, in my opinion, I feel strongly and slant towards the fact that I deem the usage of torture on criminals and terrorists to be unjustifiable. I came to this conclusion after several thoughts and feel that no one has the right to harm others. In this case, if the authorities still use torture on the terrorists and convicts, then what makes them any better from the terrorists who also caused harm to others?

-V.Nandeeshwar ( Post for the previous week)

My views on the statement of,’ The Union between sports and business is “often an uneasy one”. ‘

2008-05-02T22:04:00.000+08:00

As stated in the article of “The business of sport”, sports and business have separate codes, interests and priorities. This is apparent in today’s sporting industry. Fundamentally this just states the fact the sports and business do not share much common similarities between them. Meaning, once they are united, expecting a positive outcome may be rare.
Sports/the involvement in sports seems to be an uprising trend amongst many globally in this era of the 21st century. Many “secretive” sports like tennis, squash and bowling are starting to shine in the sporting industry due to the exceptional participation by youths today. However, as we all know, sporting is “so-called, nothing” without sponsors. Sponsors are the key to the development in a specific sport.

Sponsorships mean more advertising. More advertising of the sport than leads to a skyrocketing interest in that sport. However, in today’s scenario, this statement can be a controversial issue to begin with.

Apparent examples show that sponsors have helped to increase the attractiveness of a certain sport. This is shown by the Motor Racing Industry, which has seen a massive hike in its magnetism to the sport and has also been classified to be a commercial break rather than a sport in past years. When looking at this statement, the portion on “…been classified to be a commercial break rather than a sport…” speaks wonders. This itself is a perceptible reason as to why the actual “Code” of the word sport is diminishing and why business when linked to sports, views massive profits. Therefore, one main reason as to why the union of business and sport is an uneasy one is because of the fact that the culture of sport is being brought down by the upcoming business sponsors, such as “Nike” for example.

Another key factor as to why the union of business and sport is an uneasy one, Is the stereotyping of sports stars. Five years ago, when Roger Federer (World Ranked 1 in Tennis) was mentioned to a teen or a young adult, their response would basically be, “yeah, he plays great on the court”. On the other hand, when you ask an adolescent who is Roger Federer, they give you a reply stating that, “oh yeah! Isn’t he the one appearing for the Gillette Shaving Advertisement?” This is what business has brought to the sporting world. An image that blinds the viewers from the truth but at the same time, portraying to them a false image of a certain personnel. Similarly, when asked who Maria Sharapova is, it would be obvious to obtain an answer going,” Isn’t she the model for the latest digital cameras?” This is what has come about to the world of today, and it is brought about mainly due to the union between business and sports. Therefore, in this case, business /sponsors do not just help to make one famous, but makes him/her famous in the wrong way. The identities of famous sportsmen are likely to be lost through this in years to come.

It is definitely wrong to say that sports should never merge with the business industry in terms of sponsors. If that is the case, none of us would be interested to take up a new sport every now and then. Without sponsors, the attractive segment of sports will be lost. However, if the power of business overshadows the sporting industry, then the likely outcome to that will be the clear dwindling of sports and the sporting culture.

-V.Nandeeshwar.

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

2008-04-30T21:25:00.001+08:00

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?

2008-04-30T21:15:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-26T17:47:00.004+08:00

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?

2008-04-25T20:15:00.001+08:00

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?

2008-04-25T18:58:00.002+08:00

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?

2008-04-23T20:42:00.001+08:00

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

2008-04-19T18:21:00.003+08:00

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

2008-04-18T23:17:00.003+08:00

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?

2008-04-18T17:17:00.000+08:00

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?

2008-04-16T21:23:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-14T21:13:00.003+08:00

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

2008-04-11T23:59:00.005+08:00

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?

2008-04-11T19:39:00.001+08:00

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

2008-04-07T20:40:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-05T09:10:00.002+08:00

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

2008-04-04T23:10:00.003+08:00

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

2008-04-04T22:07:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-04T21:07:00.001+08:00

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

2008-04-04T18:48:00.005+08:00

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.

My Opinion on the Key Concept of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle.

2008-03-29T18:59:00.001+08:00

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle was stated in his book “On Liberty”. John argues “that the sole purpose of law should be to stop people from harming others. Conversely, Mill concludes that government should not forcibly prevent people from engaging in victimless crimes such as gambling, drug usage, and prostitution”.
An extract of what essay is as shown:

“…is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Generally governance in any government is based on that principle, where policy makers will have to look at the outcome of developing or enforcing a particular law to be cleared by their respective parliaments or senates.
In Singapore, we have seen such policies being promulgated over the years. For example when the country was hit by the deadly SARS virus in Apr 2003. We have always had the law against spitting which is a common natural habit for many. Spitting in public places created uproar in Singapore on the onset of SARS when people were penalized for spitting in public places because of the possibility of the SARS virus being transmitted by the sputum of the individual. Singaporeans started to take notice of such violations and were voluntarily reporting people who violated that law, all for the sake of the general public. People started to be aware of the consequences. However after 5 years, that eagerness that was present in 2003 has dwindled as I have seen many Singaporeans spitting and getting away with it.
The same could be said about smoking where there is ban in smoking in public places. This was due to the findings that passive smoking has also caused lung cancer in people who do not smoke. A classic case where a law is instituted to stop people from harming other people.
Despotism is legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians. Such as the internal security act that hunts people down who are involved trans- territorial terrorism activities e.g. like the JIs or the Al Qaeda groups.
It is also important to note from John Mills that a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inactions too. This is where a person is held accountable for any injury that is caused by his inaction. This was clearly evident in the drowning of the NS solder in Pulau Tekong Military camp during a water dunking training, where the inaction(s) of the supervisor for the exercise was also held accountable for the death of the soldier, even though he was not the instructor actually conducting the training. Thus to make someone answerable for doing evil to others is the rule but to make him answerable for not preventing the evil is comparatively specking the exception but not totally ruled out in the court of law.

However the statement in John Mills exercise also emphasizes that personal liberty needs to be respected .This falls under the following category: a. Liberty of conscience (thoughts and feelings), b. Liberty of tastes and pursuits, and c. Liberty of combination of individuals.
I support the “Harm principle” that John Mills had stated for each of us must pursue our won good in our own way as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs and or impede their efforts in doing so. Each of us are our own guardian, in how we look after ourselves in both physically, mentally and spiritually. Mankind has reached a point where whether as rulers or as citizens we tend to impose or inclinations and opinions as a rule of conduct on others and this is generally due to the desire to have power over others. As I see it this greed for power is not declining and the only way to move our society is to have inculcate a strong moral obligation against such mischief where we must not harm other people. This is the epitome social excellence that we must strive for.

Why Freedom Of Speech Should, as far as possible, Be Granted To The People

2008-03-29T17:17:00.002+08:00

In my opinion, the governments of nations should as far as possible grant the people freedom of speech. The government need only step in when the people are crossing the borders of freedom of speech, and as said by Baggini & Kassim,"... we should constrain the liberty of others if what they do causes harm..." As such, the people should be able to voice out their opinions, and are beginning to cause harm to a person or ,more importantly, a group of people. If the opinions expressed do not cause this type of harm, and only offends a group of people, then these people can rally together and protest, excersising their freedom of speech, or as put by Chua, they can "vote with their wallets." When the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were published, as a muslim, I avoided Lurpak butter. I still do not purchase Lurpak butter, and my family and I use Flora butter to add flavour to our bread(which is locally produced). My own "mini" protest gave me much satisfaction, and will give any rational person, in my opinion, a sense of satisfaction. Living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society, everyone has to accommodate one another. As such, people can simply have the satisfaction that they have done something to express their views on a specific issue and have exercised their freedom of speech, while not stirring up any racial riots. As said by Chua, "It is the old dictum of a democratic, liberal society, that I may disagree with you, but I will defend vigorously your right to do so." In keeping true to our democratic roots, I feel that the government should, as far as possible, give people their right to express their views. This would mean the scrapping of all laws protecting a specific race or religion from what they deem to be insult.

The press has to be granted freedom of speech as well. This is provided that the press knows how to exercise its freedom of speech in a way that is not damaging to the society. If the press were to take extreme views on a certain topic, then they should be able to phrase and justify their view in a way that will please those who agree with them, and give those who disagree with them a point to ponder about. The forum pages of the newspapers should also give the people freedom of speech, meaning that the maximum possible number of views should be printed. This type of expression of views will result in healthy debate among the people, and the government can focus on more important issues.

Opinion on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

2008-03-29T13:03:00.003+08:00

According to Mill, there is only one legitimate reason for the exercise of power over individuals:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

In response to John Stuart Mill's harm principle, I feel that the principle is only an ideal principle, just like communism which can never be applied in reality and only covers one form of wrongdoing. Whether a person has caused harm or not is not the only determinant in deciding whether one is guilty of a crime. Must one cause harm to have done wrong? Furthermore, what is the definition of “harm” in this principle? Does it only mean physical harm or injury? Or does it include psychological sufferings as well? Humans are emotional beings and psychological harm can cause greater damage than physical harm does. How and who will determine the degree of harm that one suffers? While physical harm is much easier to define, psychological harm is subjective to one's mindset. What one feels is harmful may be seen as harmless to another. Hence, the harm principle is not an appropriate guideline to determine whether one is punishable by law.

The harm principle does not cover the issue of moral values. Morally wrong acts may not be harmful to anyone, yet may result in serious consequences that should have it punishable by law. Theft is an act of crime, but may not cause harm to anyone. Racism too, may not neccesary cause harm, but it is definitely an act deserving punishment by the law, for it affects the unity of the multi-racial society of Singapore, where development is greatly dependant on this very harmony. Racism disrupts this harmony and affects the social peace and economy of the country. As seen from these examples, harmless acts may result in serious consequences to the society as a whole. Concluding the above statements, I feel that Mill's “harm principle” is insufficient alone as a guideline to determine whether one is punishable by the law, and it should also be decided based upon the individual situations and moral values as well.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2008-03-29T09:45:00.008+08:00

I feel that Szilagyi's view on social responsibility should be adopted in Singapore. Although Singer states that freedom of speech should stand as it is every human's basic right and is essential for the advancement of democratic regimes, which is true, I believe otherwise; at least in the context of Singapore. Freedom of speech is a basic right when speakers use it responsibly. However this is not always the case and there is no room for anyone to use freedom of speech irresponsibly. Hence, in Sinagapore, which is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and I believe that social responsibility should be practised. This is important if a country such as Singapore wants to achieve political and social stability. Singapore should place this as its top priority rather than catering to its people's want for free speech

In Singapore iresponsible use of freedom of speech can easily lead to racial and religious conflicts among its people. Its government and more importantly its people and media, I feel, should thus adhere to social responsibility. Transfer of messages from one cultural context to another in our highly networked world can very quickly spark societical and political tensions and the power to transfer this messages lies in the media and quite significantly in the people. For instance, when the Danish and Norwiegian newspaper published provocative cartoons of Phrophet Muhammad, its only intention was to express its views. However, through through the spread of these messages that were greatly manupilated by the people, it sparked of demonstrations and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East and rough relations between Christian and Muslim countries. Thus social responsibility should be adopted in Singapore. The media must realize that they alone do not create or determine the lifespan and outcomes of the mesages they publish. They must realize that once the messages are out in public, like Szilagyi said, they develop a life of their own and are subject to multiple interpretations and manupilations. Its people must also act responsibly and be aware of what they should express and what they should not. The government should also do what it can to ensure that the people and media express their views responsibly and can impose censorship on certain view that can threaten our country's stability.