1. globalization and culture
Globalization (or Globalisation) refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.
Globalization literally means, "to extend to the world as a whole."
Culture generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Culture can also be called "the way of life for an entire society."
how globalization affects culture:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n3/globalization.pdf
key questions on globalisation:
http://www.globalisationguide.org/
2. Environmental and biodiversity, sustainable development
Biodiversity is the variation of taxonomic life forms within a given ecosystem, biome or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems.
Sustainable development is defined as balancing the fulfilment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future.
About biodiversity and environmental issues:
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Biodiversity.asp
About sustainable development:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development.asp
http://www.globallearningnj.org/iste.htm
3. Terrorism and war
Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.
About terrorism and war:
http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,20-6055,00.html
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
blog task 2 for term 3
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Couples of the same sex holding hands and walking together on the streets is not a common sight that we would normally see. Should we spot one on the street, our eyes tends to shift towards the couples direction to observe their movements, and some of us would perhaps feel disgusted about what we have just seen. This is a typical case of discrimination against the homosexuals. While it is mostly true that the society discriminates homosexuals, the question remains as to whether same-sex marriage should be considered in this age of globalization.
Same-sex marriage is defined as a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. In this advanced age of globalization, same sex marriage should actually be considered. This is because everybody has basic human rights and they should be free to choose who they want to marry. Therefore, the state should not have any rights to deem same-sex marriage as illegal and not allow it. Furthermore, the state enforces laws to protect the interest of the citizens and society; however, there is actually no evidence that same-sex marriages would hurt the interest of the citizens or society. Therefore, why is it not allowed by the state?
Same-sex marriage should also be considered for the pink dollar that it can bring in for a country that legalizes same-sex marriage. Pink dollar is a term describing the purchasing power of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in the United States. It is estimated that the US lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender market put its value at approximately $641 billion in the year 2006. Therefore, the amount of pink dollar that homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender can bring in can actually be too tempting for a country.
One reason to why same-sex marriages are considered to be impractical is the concern that kids that are adopted or artificially inseminated and raised by parents of the same sex may grow up to be mocked at as he or she has two mothers or fathers. The child may grow up to be confused about his or her gender and may have a gender identification crisis later in his or her life. However, these arguments are invalid as there is no statistics to prove that same sex families will definitely raise children to be confused in his or her gender or have gender identification crisis in the later part of their life. Instead, same sex families can actually raise a child well as both the parents have gone through a lot to be together and have the child. Therefore, they would definite cherish the child and would raise him or her up to the best that they can. Hence, the worry that same sex parents not being able to raise a child as well as other parents cannot be a reason to not allowing same-sex marriages.
On the other hand, one reason to why same-sex marriages cannot be a practical consideration is due to religion. Christian denominations, Islam and Orthodox Judaism are against same-sex marriages. For example, some moderate Christians believe that same-sex marriages go against bible teachings. Therefore, legalizing of homosexual marriages is actually not a practical idea as it may cause unnecessary tension among religious groups and may even spark riots protesting the legalization of homosexual marriages.
In conclusion, same-sex marriage should actually be considered. The main reason to why it is not allowed is due to unduly worries by people. Homosexuals are humans after all. Homosexuality is not a disease and they won’t infect the society. Homosexuals do not harm the society too. Why don’t we give them a chance in life and let them marry their partners?
Couples of the same sex holding hands and walking together on the streets is not a common sight that we would normally see. Should we spot one on the street, our eyes tends to shift towards the couples direction to observe their movements, and some of us would perhaps feel disgusted about what we have just seen. This is a typical case of discrimination against the homosexuals. While it is mostly true that the society discriminates homosexuals, the question remains as to whether same-sex marriage should be considered in this age of globalization.
Same-sex marriage is defined as a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. In this advanced age of globalization, same sex marriage should actually be considered. This is because everybody has basic human rights and they should be free to choose who they want to marry. Therefore, the state should not have any rights to deem same-sex marriage as illegal and not allow it. Furthermore, the state enforces laws to protect the interest of the citizens and society; however, there is actually no evidence that same-sex marriages would hurt the interest of the citizens or society. Therefore, why is it not allowed by the state?
Same-sex marriage should also be considered for the pink dollar that it can bring in for a country that legalizes same-sex marriage. Pink dollar is a term describing the purchasing power of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in the United States. It is estimated that the US lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender market put its value at approximately $641 billion in the year 2006. Therefore, the amount of pink dollar that homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender can bring in can actually be too tempting for a country.
One reason to why same-sex marriages are considered to be impractical is the concern that kids that are adopted or artificially inseminated and raised by parents of the same sex may grow up to be mocked at as he or she has two mothers or fathers. The child may grow up to be confused about his or her gender and may have a gender identification crisis later in his or her life. However, these arguments are invalid as there is no statistics to prove that same sex families will definitely raise children to be confused in his or her gender or have gender identification crisis in the later part of their life. Instead, same sex families can actually raise a child well as both the parents have gone through a lot to be together and have the child. Therefore, they would definite cherish the child and would raise him or her up to the best that they can. Hence, the worry that same sex parents not being able to raise a child as well as other parents cannot be a reason to not allowing same-sex marriages.
On the other hand, one reason to why same-sex marriages cannot be a practical consideration is due to religion. Christian denominations, Islam and Orthodox Judaism are against same-sex marriages. For example, some moderate Christians believe that same-sex marriages go against bible teachings. Therefore, legalizing of homosexual marriages is actually not a practical idea as it may cause unnecessary tension among religious groups and may even spark riots protesting the legalization of homosexual marriages.
In conclusion, same-sex marriage should actually be considered. The main reason to why it is not allowed is due to unduly worries by people. Homosexuals are humans after all. Homosexuality is not a disease and they won’t infect the society. Homosexuals do not harm the society too. Why don’t we give them a chance in life and let them marry their partners?
Friday, August 10, 2007
blog task 1 for term 3
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)Do you agree?
The statement “the mother of revolution and crime is poverty” by Aristotle is only true to a small extent. I think that this is largely a sweeping statement. This statement by Aristotle singles out poverty as the main cause of revolution and crime. In my opinion, it is indeed true that poverty cause revolution but it is not the case for causing crimes.
Revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. Revolution can be said to be caused by poverty. Should the people be well off, they would not be unhappy with their government. Should the people have enough food to eat, they would not blame their sorry plight on the government. Therefore, the main reason that arises from people overthrowing their government is poverty, as these people seek to have a better life in the aftermath of the revolution. One does not need to look too far from the Revolution of 1911 in China, where the monarchy was overthrown, to explain that poverty is the cause of revolutions. One of the causes of revolution pointed out at the hard life of the Chinese people where about 90% of the population in China were poor peasants. The famine was widespread but the government did little to help regions where many peasants has literally starved to death. Hence, it was not surprising that the peasants welcomed the revolution as it provided them a chance to change their life.
Another example that can further support the statement that the cause of revolution is poverty is the revolution that took place in Russia in 1905, and another two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution in 1905 took place due to food shortages, deteriorating living and working conditions and a losing war against Japan. The second revolution, known as the February revolution of 1917, was also caused by the same reasons that caused the first revolution. The third revolution, known as the October revolution, arise after the Provisional Government had proved to be equally ineffective as the previous rule. These three revolutions served as a purpose to remind people that poverty can cause the people to support revolutionary groups to overthrow the government, in search of a better life.
However, to solely point the finger at poverty being the root of all revolution is not justified. There can be other causes of revolution. Taking the 1911 revolution in China for example, the main cause of the revolution was actually the Manchu government being weak and inefficient. It was the government’s inefficiency that led to the problems that China faced in 1911. One such problem was the foreign intervention in China where the foreign countries made China sign unequal treaties. Hence, although it is true that poverty is a large cause of revolutions, we should not neglect other factors that can play important roles in causing revolutions to occur.
With poverty being justified to be one of the main causes of revolution, we shall now explore whether poverty is the cause of crime. Crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I feel that poverty only lead to specific crimes like theft, kidnapping or burglary. A poor person who is feeling helpless and hopeless may resort to stealing in order to get more food to support his family. This person may be driven by greed, anger or desperation. One does not need to look too far away from the multiple stories of drug abusers resorting to theft to get money to buy drugs to satisfy their craving.
However, to blame poverty as the main cause of crime may be too hasty an accusation. Some people may steal for the thrill of it. For example, people diagnosed with Kleptomania cannot control their compulsion to steal although they may not be poor. Also, some crimes are committed not because the person is poor, but because of the selfish and greedy wants of a person. For example, a rapist commits rape to satisfy his or her lust or sexual need. A murderer may murder his or her victim due to anger and hatred for the victim. These criminals however, are not victims of poverty. Hence, the argument that poverty is the cause of crime is an invalid one.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s statement that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty is only true to a certain extent. While poverty can be viewed as the catalyst to revolution, it cannot totally be pinpointed as the main cause of revolution. Also, poverty can only cause certain types of crime like theft or kidnapping. However, not all cases of these crimes are associated with poverty and there are also other crimes that cannot be justified to be caused by poverty.
The statement “the mother of revolution and crime is poverty” by Aristotle is only true to a small extent. I think that this is largely a sweeping statement. This statement by Aristotle singles out poverty as the main cause of revolution and crime. In my opinion, it is indeed true that poverty cause revolution but it is not the case for causing crimes.
Revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. Revolution can be said to be caused by poverty. Should the people be well off, they would not be unhappy with their government. Should the people have enough food to eat, they would not blame their sorry plight on the government. Therefore, the main reason that arises from people overthrowing their government is poverty, as these people seek to have a better life in the aftermath of the revolution. One does not need to look too far from the Revolution of 1911 in China, where the monarchy was overthrown, to explain that poverty is the cause of revolutions. One of the causes of revolution pointed out at the hard life of the Chinese people where about 90% of the population in China were poor peasants. The famine was widespread but the government did little to help regions where many peasants has literally starved to death. Hence, it was not surprising that the peasants welcomed the revolution as it provided them a chance to change their life.
Another example that can further support the statement that the cause of revolution is poverty is the revolution that took place in Russia in 1905, and another two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution in 1905 took place due to food shortages, deteriorating living and working conditions and a losing war against Japan. The second revolution, known as the February revolution of 1917, was also caused by the same reasons that caused the first revolution. The third revolution, known as the October revolution, arise after the Provisional Government had proved to be equally ineffective as the previous rule. These three revolutions served as a purpose to remind people that poverty can cause the people to support revolutionary groups to overthrow the government, in search of a better life.
However, to solely point the finger at poverty being the root of all revolution is not justified. There can be other causes of revolution. Taking the 1911 revolution in China for example, the main cause of the revolution was actually the Manchu government being weak and inefficient. It was the government’s inefficiency that led to the problems that China faced in 1911. One such problem was the foreign intervention in China where the foreign countries made China sign unequal treaties. Hence, although it is true that poverty is a large cause of revolutions, we should not neglect other factors that can play important roles in causing revolutions to occur.
With poverty being justified to be one of the main causes of revolution, we shall now explore whether poverty is the cause of crime. Crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I feel that poverty only lead to specific crimes like theft, kidnapping or burglary. A poor person who is feeling helpless and hopeless may resort to stealing in order to get more food to support his family. This person may be driven by greed, anger or desperation. One does not need to look too far away from the multiple stories of drug abusers resorting to theft to get money to buy drugs to satisfy their craving.
However, to blame poverty as the main cause of crime may be too hasty an accusation. Some people may steal for the thrill of it. For example, people diagnosed with Kleptomania cannot control their compulsion to steal although they may not be poor. Also, some crimes are committed not because the person is poor, but because of the selfish and greedy wants of a person. For example, a rapist commits rape to satisfy his or her lust or sexual need. A murderer may murder his or her victim due to anger and hatred for the victim. These criminals however, are not victims of poverty. Hence, the argument that poverty is the cause of crime is an invalid one.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s statement that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty is only true to a certain extent. While poverty can be viewed as the catalyst to revolution, it cannot totally be pinpointed as the main cause of revolution. Also, poverty can only cause certain types of crime like theft or kidnapping. However, not all cases of these crimes are associated with poverty and there are also other crimes that cannot be justified to be caused by poverty.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Case study articles
lookism
1. Discrimination or prejudice based on a person's physical appearance.
http://www.geocities.com/s_cullars/lookism.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123853&page=1
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html
Ageism
1. Discrimination against persons of a certain age group.
2. A tendency to regard older persons as debilitated, unworthy of attention, or unsuitable for employment.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/may03/fighting.html
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ageism.html
Disablism
Disalism is used to describe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled
Xenophobia
An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
1. Discrimination or prejudice based on a person's physical appearance.
http://www.geocities.com/s_cullars/lookism.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123853&page=1
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html
Ageism
1. Discrimination against persons of a certain age group.
2. A tendency to regard older persons as debilitated, unworthy of attention, or unsuitable for employment.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/may03/fighting.html
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ageism.html
Disablism
Disalism is used to describe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled
Xenophobia
An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
june holiday blog assignment
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Peter Singer believes that freedom of speech is essential to any democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. People must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without this freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.
To a certain extent, Singer’s point of view is true. Freedom of speech is indeed essential to any democratic regimes and should not be limited. Freedom of speech can even help a government to lead their country more effectively. For example, with freedom of speech, the citizens of a democratic country can be free to express his or her views about policies implemented by the government. The government will be able to listen to the grouses of their citizens of the new policies they implemented and perhaps alter the policy to suit the demands of the citizens. In this way, both the citizens and the government will benefit as the citizens are satisfied with the changes made and the government gain respect for listening to the citizens. In this way, the country will be able to progress more effectively with the freedom of speech.
However, I do not support Singer’s belief that people must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. By denying the existence of God or criticize teachings of other religions, one can easily cause unnecessary arguments or arouse displeasure and perhaps even cause riots or demonstrations. One such recent example is the publishing of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad by the Danish and Norwegian newspapers which provoked rage in the Muslim world, leading to mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. I believe that the freedom of expression is wrongly used in this case as the issue discussed was about religion, something which still continues to make people defend the ideologies and die for.
On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He believes that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Also, whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. This raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.
I strongly believe that what Szilagyi said is true. Although many people believe that the freedom of expression is a basic human right, but we must know when and how we should exercise this right. This is social responsibility. We should use this freedom of expression to fight for something which will benefit the society as a whole and not put anybody in a worse off situation. For example, freedom of expression used by citizens to appeal to the government to change their policies for the better of the country is the correct way to exercise this right. However, usage of freedom of expression to criticize religious figures is deemed socially wrong as this may cause riots and demonstrations. No one benefits from this and I personally see this as a very selfish act. This is because the person who made the rude remarks perhaps did not think of the consequences of his actions beforehand.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Singapore, being a multi-racial society, values racial harmony as this is the key factor to why Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world. The past government and the present have identified and agreed that without racial harmony, Singapore cannot progress as a society. This is the reason why students have to recite the pledge every morning as much emphasis is placed on the weak concept of social cohesion. Also, with the 1964 racial riots still deeply imprinted in the minds of several elder Singaporeans, I can be quite sure to say that none of us want a repeat of that tragedy. Therefore, as citizens of Singapore, we should be responsible socially and exercise the freedom of expression for the better of the society and not for the individual selfish reasons.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Peter Singer believes that freedom of speech is essential to any democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. People must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without this freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.
To a certain extent, Singer’s point of view is true. Freedom of speech is indeed essential to any democratic regimes and should not be limited. Freedom of speech can even help a government to lead their country more effectively. For example, with freedom of speech, the citizens of a democratic country can be free to express his or her views about policies implemented by the government. The government will be able to listen to the grouses of their citizens of the new policies they implemented and perhaps alter the policy to suit the demands of the citizens. In this way, both the citizens and the government will benefit as the citizens are satisfied with the changes made and the government gain respect for listening to the citizens. In this way, the country will be able to progress more effectively with the freedom of speech.
However, I do not support Singer’s belief that people must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. By denying the existence of God or criticize teachings of other religions, one can easily cause unnecessary arguments or arouse displeasure and perhaps even cause riots or demonstrations. One such recent example is the publishing of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad by the Danish and Norwegian newspapers which provoked rage in the Muslim world, leading to mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. I believe that the freedom of expression is wrongly used in this case as the issue discussed was about religion, something which still continues to make people defend the ideologies and die for.
On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He believes that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Also, whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. This raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.
I strongly believe that what Szilagyi said is true. Although many people believe that the freedom of expression is a basic human right, but we must know when and how we should exercise this right. This is social responsibility. We should use this freedom of expression to fight for something which will benefit the society as a whole and not put anybody in a worse off situation. For example, freedom of expression used by citizens to appeal to the government to change their policies for the better of the country is the correct way to exercise this right. However, usage of freedom of expression to criticize religious figures is deemed socially wrong as this may cause riots and demonstrations. No one benefits from this and I personally see this as a very selfish act. This is because the person who made the rude remarks perhaps did not think of the consequences of his actions beforehand.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Singapore, being a multi-racial society, values racial harmony as this is the key factor to why Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world. The past government and the present have identified and agreed that without racial harmony, Singapore cannot progress as a society. This is the reason why students have to recite the pledge every morning as much emphasis is placed on the weak concept of social cohesion. Also, with the 1964 racial riots still deeply imprinted in the minds of several elder Singaporeans, I can be quite sure to say that none of us want a repeat of that tragedy. Therefore, as citizens of Singapore, we should be responsible socially and exercise the freedom of expression for the better of the society and not for the individual selfish reasons.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
blog task 3
"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder" Do you agree?
According to Wikipedia, capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Examples of capital crime includes terrorism, drug trafficking, first degree murder and treason.
Death is the end of life. It is much feared by all. Therefore it is used as a powerful weapon to deter others from committing capital crimes. So the statement is wrong to a large extent in claiming that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
According to dictionary.com, to deter is to try to prevent. I believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. This is because we humans make rational decisions. Before we decide our actions, we would process in our mind if the action is a right one and the consequences of the action. Should people know that just by bringing in 15 grams (half an ounce) of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine or 500 grams of cannabis into our country, they would get the death penalty if arrested, chances are they probably would not try to do so.
So what factors would bring us to believe that the death penalty is murder? Well, many people argue that people should not try to be god and should not have the right to decide which human should die because of their wrongdoings. However, I think that this argument is not valid as this seems to be too protective of criminals who have committed capital crimes. We should not forget that these criminals have violated another human being, did not give them any rights in the course of their crime, and therefore their human rights should be taken away as well.
However, the death penalty has always been a controversial issue. As stated in http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html, “Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 82 inmates have been freed from the death row. That is 1 death row inmate found to be wrongfully convicted for every 7 executed.” With reference to this statistic, we should take into consideration that the juries and police officers are humans after all and they do err in their work. Hence, the death penalty may have loopholes and a person may be wrongly convicted at times. Miscarriage of justice is irreversible and a person’s life will therefore be wrongfully taken away by law. This is one of the stands that the anti death penalty groups have reinstated in their protest against the death penalty. Would not it be better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one?
What I would suggest is that the death penalty should still be accepted. However, the death penalty should only be sentenced if the person is really found guilty of a capital crime. This way, miscarriage of justice would be minimized.
According to Wikipedia, capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Examples of capital crime includes terrorism, drug trafficking, first degree murder and treason.
Death is the end of life. It is much feared by all. Therefore it is used as a powerful weapon to deter others from committing capital crimes. So the statement is wrong to a large extent in claiming that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
According to dictionary.com, to deter is to try to prevent. I believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. This is because we humans make rational decisions. Before we decide our actions, we would process in our mind if the action is a right one and the consequences of the action. Should people know that just by bringing in 15 grams (half an ounce) of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine or 500 grams of cannabis into our country, they would get the death penalty if arrested, chances are they probably would not try to do so.
So what factors would bring us to believe that the death penalty is murder? Well, many people argue that people should not try to be god and should not have the right to decide which human should die because of their wrongdoings. However, I think that this argument is not valid as this seems to be too protective of criminals who have committed capital crimes. We should not forget that these criminals have violated another human being, did not give them any rights in the course of their crime, and therefore their human rights should be taken away as well.
However, the death penalty has always been a controversial issue. As stated in http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html, “Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 82 inmates have been freed from the death row. That is 1 death row inmate found to be wrongfully convicted for every 7 executed.” With reference to this statistic, we should take into consideration that the juries and police officers are humans after all and they do err in their work. Hence, the death penalty may have loopholes and a person may be wrongly convicted at times. Miscarriage of justice is irreversible and a person’s life will therefore be wrongfully taken away by law. This is one of the stands that the anti death penalty groups have reinstated in their protest against the death penalty. Would not it be better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one?
What I would suggest is that the death penalty should still be accepted. However, the death penalty should only be sentenced if the person is really found guilty of a capital crime. This way, miscarriage of justice would be minimized.
Friday, April 27, 2007
blog task 2
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is necessary/unnecessary
Censorship is everywhere. It is used to remove or withhold information from the public. The question is, to what extent is censorship necessary?
The advantages of censorship are conspicuous. Censorship serves to remove taboo topics such as death, violence, horror, sex, politics, race, religion, etc. These topics are sensitive for discussion and may arouse anger should a particular group of people be subjected against. Unnecessary tension may then ensue followed by riots or demonstrations. Therefore to safeguard both public and the national interest, censorship is necessary.
We should also not forget that the audience of the media ranges from a child to the elderly. Censorship can therefore help to remove topics like sex and violence which an average child should not be exposed to. This protects their mind from corrupted information. It can also save parents the trouble of having to answer questions related to sex or the trouble of having to wake up in the night to tend to their child’s nightmare after watching a horror show not meant for their age group.
Also, censorship is necessary especially for Singapore’s multi-racial society.
Many of the elder Singaporeans have yet to forget about the 1964 race riot which was believed to be caused by a rival political party of the People’s action party (PAP), Malaysia’s United Malay National Organization (UMNO). What UMNO did was to rouse the anger of the Malays in Singapore through the Utusan Melayu, a newspaper written for the Malays, by claiming that Malays were ill-treated by the PAP. This triggered a series of riots in Singapore then. With this incident deeply imprinted in the minds of the leaders of Singapore, it is no wonder that censorship is largely exercised to ensure that no negative message is sent to the citizens, in prevention of another large-scale riot.
However, critics have been swift to lash out at the use of censorship. They believe that censorship is not necessary as reality should be shown to us audiences. The truth to every piece of news should be known instead of beating around the bush and avoid releasing the truth. This, they believe, is freedom of expression.
Furthermore, censorship is not useful to a certain extent as there are other sources in which people can refer to to know the truth of a particular matter. This other source can come from the internet which is wildly used by all today. By just doing a simple search, one can gain assess to the different sources of information which they want to acquire. Hence, why should censorship be necessary if it fails to keep the truth from the people?
In my opinion, after examining both sides of the arguments, I believe that censorship is still necessary to a large extent to protect the interest of the nation. The merits of censorship far outweigh the demerits of it. One would rather choose to be kept in the dark rather than to discuss sensitive issues. As the adage goes, ignorance is bliss.
Censorship is everywhere. It is used to remove or withhold information from the public. The question is, to what extent is censorship necessary?
The advantages of censorship are conspicuous. Censorship serves to remove taboo topics such as death, violence, horror, sex, politics, race, religion, etc. These topics are sensitive for discussion and may arouse anger should a particular group of people be subjected against. Unnecessary tension may then ensue followed by riots or demonstrations. Therefore to safeguard both public and the national interest, censorship is necessary.
We should also not forget that the audience of the media ranges from a child to the elderly. Censorship can therefore help to remove topics like sex and violence which an average child should not be exposed to. This protects their mind from corrupted information. It can also save parents the trouble of having to answer questions related to sex or the trouble of having to wake up in the night to tend to their child’s nightmare after watching a horror show not meant for their age group.
Also, censorship is necessary especially for Singapore’s multi-racial society.
Many of the elder Singaporeans have yet to forget about the 1964 race riot which was believed to be caused by a rival political party of the People’s action party (PAP), Malaysia’s United Malay National Organization (UMNO). What UMNO did was to rouse the anger of the Malays in Singapore through the Utusan Melayu, a newspaper written for the Malays, by claiming that Malays were ill-treated by the PAP. This triggered a series of riots in Singapore then. With this incident deeply imprinted in the minds of the leaders of Singapore, it is no wonder that censorship is largely exercised to ensure that no negative message is sent to the citizens, in prevention of another large-scale riot.
However, critics have been swift to lash out at the use of censorship. They believe that censorship is not necessary as reality should be shown to us audiences. The truth to every piece of news should be known instead of beating around the bush and avoid releasing the truth. This, they believe, is freedom of expression.
Furthermore, censorship is not useful to a certain extent as there are other sources in which people can refer to to know the truth of a particular matter. This other source can come from the internet which is wildly used by all today. By just doing a simple search, one can gain assess to the different sources of information which they want to acquire. Hence, why should censorship be necessary if it fails to keep the truth from the people?
In my opinion, after examining both sides of the arguments, I believe that censorship is still necessary to a large extent to protect the interest of the nation. The merits of censorship far outweigh the demerits of it. One would rather choose to be kept in the dark rather than to discuss sensitive issues. As the adage goes, ignorance is bliss.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
blog task 1
TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan's media industry
Despite living in the digital age, books and papers are still the order of the day.
Businessmen donned in suits browsing through the papers with a cup of coffee in cafes and commuters reading their books in trains in the early morning are common sights.
So why does the world have a fascination with books, magazines and papers?
They provide people with a quick source of information, whether as a form of relaxation or for work purposes.
The question is, how far do we expect the information to be accurate from these sources and does that matter? The gamut of information ranges from the sensational coverage of Madonna's adoption of an African kid to news about the shutting down of North Korea's nuclear facilities. Obviously, the former appeals if one just want some light reading but the latter is taken more seriously if one is reading to keep abreast of the world's developments.
Video footages showing death threats are usually taken quite seriously by television viewers who naturally demand more about the accuracy of the information. So one is hardly surprised to learn that the Taiwanese public was really upset upon learning that it's trust on the media has been abused when the truth about the journalist shielding the truth of the sensational video source surfaced.
In this highly competitive society, everyone tries to outdo each other. The media industry is no exception. The TVBS's production of this arresting video can be understood to be one method to stay competitive by attracting viewers. Though they had success initially as their rating shoots sky high when the footage was aired, their reputation came crushing down when their deception was uncovered. Is this really what the media industry want?
Therefore, the next question is, how do we keep in check that the media remain responsible to what they report? One way to flex the consumer's muscles is to air any displeasure through, ironically other forms of media. For example, if one feels that the radio station has been making partican remarks, he or she can write to the Straits Times forum.
The problem of the credibility of the media has always been present. One should also not doubt the fact that this problem of credibility will continue to persist as there is no solution to resolve this problem. What one can do however, is to read from different sources to obtain the truth of events or to develop a better perspective of the situation.
Despite living in the digital age, books and papers are still the order of the day.
Businessmen donned in suits browsing through the papers with a cup of coffee in cafes and commuters reading their books in trains in the early morning are common sights.
So why does the world have a fascination with books, magazines and papers?
They provide people with a quick source of information, whether as a form of relaxation or for work purposes.
The question is, how far do we expect the information to be accurate from these sources and does that matter? The gamut of information ranges from the sensational coverage of Madonna's adoption of an African kid to news about the shutting down of North Korea's nuclear facilities. Obviously, the former appeals if one just want some light reading but the latter is taken more seriously if one is reading to keep abreast of the world's developments.
Video footages showing death threats are usually taken quite seriously by television viewers who naturally demand more about the accuracy of the information. So one is hardly surprised to learn that the Taiwanese public was really upset upon learning that it's trust on the media has been abused when the truth about the journalist shielding the truth of the sensational video source surfaced.
In this highly competitive society, everyone tries to outdo each other. The media industry is no exception. The TVBS's production of this arresting video can be understood to be one method to stay competitive by attracting viewers. Though they had success initially as their rating shoots sky high when the footage was aired, their reputation came crushing down when their deception was uncovered. Is this really what the media industry want?
Therefore, the next question is, how do we keep in check that the media remain responsible to what they report? One way to flex the consumer's muscles is to air any displeasure through, ironically other forms of media. For example, if one feels that the radio station has been making partican remarks, he or she can write to the Straits Times forum.
The problem of the credibility of the media has always been present. One should also not doubt the fact that this problem of credibility will continue to persist as there is no solution to resolve this problem. What one can do however, is to read from different sources to obtain the truth of events or to develop a better perspective of the situation.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
not just another story..
Hi guys! I heard this story recently and would like to share it with you guys.
This story makes a sad person happy and a happy person sad..
Therefore, if you are feeling moody now, I hope this story can brighten up your day.
However if you are feeling happy now.. Well, i would not encourage you to carry on reading this..
Well.. Here goes the master of story telling =DDD
One day Solomon decided to humble Benaiah, his most trusted minister. He said to him, "Benaiah, there is a certain ring that I want you to bring to me. I wish to wear it for Sukkot, and I shall give you six months to find it."
"If it exists anywhere on earth, your majesty," replied Benaiah, "I will find it and bring it to you, but what makes the ring so special?"
"It has magic powers," answered the king. "If a happy man looks at it, he becomes sad, and if a sad man looks at it, he becomes happy." Solomon knew that no such ring existed in the world, but he wished to give his minister a little taste of humility.
Spring passed and then summer, and still Benaiah had no idea where he could find the ring. On the night before Sukkot, he decided to take a walk in one of the poorest quarters of Jerusalem. He passed by a merchant who had begun to set out the day's wares on a shabby carpet.
"Have you by any chance heard of a magic ring that makes the happy wearer forget his joy and the broken-hearted wearer forget his sorrows?" asked Benaiah. He watched the grandfather take a plain gold ring from his carpet and engrave something on it. When Benaiah read the words on the ring, his face broke out in a wide smile. That night the entire city welcomed in the holiday of Sukkot with great festivity.
"Well, my friend," said Solomon, "have you found what I sent you after?" All the ministers laughed and Solomon himself smiled. To everyone's surprise, Benaiah held up a small gold ring and declared, "Here it is, your majesty!" As soon as Solomon read the inscription, the smile vanished from his face.
Hey, at this point of time, guess what is the inscription on the ring ok. The answer is below.
The jeweler had written three Hebrew letters on the gold band: "Gam zeh ya'avor' -- "This too shall pass." At that moment Solomon realized that all his wisdom, fabulous wealth and tremendous power were but fleeting things, for one day he would be nothing but dust.
The END...
How's this story? =D
Share it with some of your moody friends that you see ok.
And if you do not understand the story, you can come look for me..
This story makes a sad person happy and a happy person sad..
Therefore, if you are feeling moody now, I hope this story can brighten up your day.
However if you are feeling happy now.. Well, i would not encourage you to carry on reading this..
Well.. Here goes the master of story telling =DDD
One day Solomon decided to humble Benaiah, his most trusted minister. He said to him, "Benaiah, there is a certain ring that I want you to bring to me. I wish to wear it for Sukkot, and I shall give you six months to find it."
"If it exists anywhere on earth, your majesty," replied Benaiah, "I will find it and bring it to you, but what makes the ring so special?"
"It has magic powers," answered the king. "If a happy man looks at it, he becomes sad, and if a sad man looks at it, he becomes happy." Solomon knew that no such ring existed in the world, but he wished to give his minister a little taste of humility.
Spring passed and then summer, and still Benaiah had no idea where he could find the ring. On the night before Sukkot, he decided to take a walk in one of the poorest quarters of Jerusalem. He passed by a merchant who had begun to set out the day's wares on a shabby carpet.
"Have you by any chance heard of a magic ring that makes the happy wearer forget his joy and the broken-hearted wearer forget his sorrows?" asked Benaiah. He watched the grandfather take a plain gold ring from his carpet and engrave something on it. When Benaiah read the words on the ring, his face broke out in a wide smile. That night the entire city welcomed in the holiday of Sukkot with great festivity.
"Well, my friend," said Solomon, "have you found what I sent you after?" All the ministers laughed and Solomon himself smiled. To everyone's surprise, Benaiah held up a small gold ring and declared, "Here it is, your majesty!" As soon as Solomon read the inscription, the smile vanished from his face.
Hey, at this point of time, guess what is the inscription on the ring ok. The answer is below.
The jeweler had written three Hebrew letters on the gold band: "Gam zeh ya'avor' -- "This too shall pass." At that moment Solomon realized that all his wisdom, fabulous wealth and tremendous power were but fleeting things, for one day he would be nothing but dust.
The END...
How's this story? =D
Share it with some of your moody friends that you see ok.
And if you do not understand the story, you can come look for me..
Monday, March 19, 2007
About myself..
Hi everyone!
My name is Poh Wei Xun and
I am currently in Anderson Junior College.
Well this is actually the second blog that i have started
(the first blog was deleted) and honestly speaking,
blogging s***s. =x
However, reading other people's blog can be interesting. =P
(A little about myself)
Wei xun likes sports but not books.
Wei xun likes Manchester united but not other football clubs.
Wei xun likes Maths but not Physcis.
Wei xun likes humanities but not languages.
Wei xun likes playing sudoku.
Wei xun likes to sleep but not to do homework.
Wei xun likes to make friends.
Wei xun likes chatting on MSN.
Erm.. Can't think of any other example already.. That sums up wei xun. =)
My alma maters are Northland Primary
and Ang Mo Kio secondary. It is in this school Ang Mo Kio secondary
that I met most of my great buddies, most of whom
are from my lower secondary class. We had lots of joy
and laughter together and I really miss those good old days.
And I still remember that most of us (including me and
don't you dare laugh at me!) cried on the last day that
we were together as a class. Sigh I wish time would stop
then but still, we have to move on.
And move on I did as I went on to study hard for
the 'O' level examination and enter Anderson Junior College,
which is actually the school of my dreams.
Haha.. Hey! The school is just two MRT stations
away from my house okay.. =)
I find myself to be quite a sporty guy and thus I decided to join a sports CCA
to learn a new sport. And that honourable sport CCA to get me was squash!!
=D Squash is actually a very fun sport although it is not famous.
I aspire to get into the school team! =)))
Oh and academic wise, I have chosen to take Physics,
Chemistry, Maths and economics at H2 level.
I am posted to PDG 23/07 which woukd be my permanent
class in this college. I have interest in Maths,
Chemistry and Economics but not in Physics (too complicated for me). =x
Hmm.. I think that's all I have for this entry.
If you want to know me better, please feel free
to chat with me on MSN. =)
Turtle signing off~
My name is Poh Wei Xun and
I am currently in Anderson Junior College.
Well this is actually the second blog that i have started
(the first blog was deleted) and honestly speaking,
blogging s***s. =x
However, reading other people's blog can be interesting. =P
(A little about myself)
Wei xun likes sports but not books.
Wei xun likes Manchester united but not other football clubs.
Wei xun likes Maths but not Physcis.
Wei xun likes humanities but not languages.
Wei xun likes playing sudoku.
Wei xun likes to sleep but not to do homework.
Wei xun likes to make friends.
Wei xun likes chatting on MSN.
Erm.. Can't think of any other example already.. That sums up wei xun. =)
My alma maters are Northland Primary
and Ang Mo Kio secondary. It is in this school Ang Mo Kio secondary
that I met most of my great buddies, most of whom
are from my lower secondary class. We had lots of joy
and laughter together and I really miss those good old days.
And I still remember that most of us (including me and
don't you dare laugh at me!) cried on the last day that
we were together as a class. Sigh I wish time would stop
then but still, we have to move on.
And move on I did as I went on to study hard for
the 'O' level examination and enter Anderson Junior College,
which is actually the school of my dreams.
Haha.. Hey! The school is just two MRT stations
away from my house okay.. =)
I find myself to be quite a sporty guy and thus I decided to join a sports CCA
to learn a new sport. And that honourable sport CCA to get me was squash!!
=D Squash is actually a very fun sport although it is not famous.
I aspire to get into the school team! =)))
Oh and academic wise, I have chosen to take Physics,
Chemistry, Maths and economics at H2 level.
I am posted to PDG 23/07 which woukd be my permanent
class in this college. I have interest in Maths,
Chemistry and Economics but not in Physics (too complicated for me). =x
Hmm.. I think that's all I have for this entry.
If you want to know me better, please feel free
to chat with me on MSN. =)
Turtle signing off~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)