Globalisation is the growing interpenetration of states, markets, communications, and ideas across borders. This expansion of global markets has given rise to growing push for equal human rights for all around the world. International norms and institutions for the protection of human rights are more developed than at any previous point in history. The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? It is well established as a matter of law that the right to marry the person one loves is so central to liberty and happiness as to be a fundamental civil right. “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights” guaranteed by the U.S Constitution.
Furthermore, gay and lesbian people themselves have become a market. In British Columbia, for an example, the tourism industry is essential to the provincial economy. For the purposes of that industry, sexual orientation has become a commodity. Marriage license registries were kept open twenty-four hours a day over the 2003 Gay Pride weekend in order to attract American gay and lesbian tourists who could not get married at home. Tour groups in Vancouver and Toronto offered “wedding packages” for same-sex couples who wanted to board a bus or airplane to get married in Canada. These couples are targeted as the gay and lesbian “marriage market.” The consumers represent an estimated $450 billion in purchasing power annually in the United States and Forbes magazine has estimated that the size of the potential market for same-sex marriages in the United States to be $16.8 billion a year. Thus same-sex marriage is a practical consideration for not only is it the right of humans, it also spreads the growth of globalisation.
However, irregardless of time period – be it in the past, present or future – marriage is a common good, not a special interest. Every society needs a natural marriage, which is the bringing of men and women together to build a domestic life and create and raise the next generation. The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults. No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal. It is very different for a child to say, “I have two mums” than to say, “I have a Korean mother and a Hispanic father.” There are no negative child-development outcomes from being raised by interracial parents but there are thousands of social science studies showing negative outcomes for children who are denied their mothers and fathers.
An impressive wealth of published social science, psychological and medical studies shows that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse. Children living apart from both biological parents are eight times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.
Moreover, there is no civil right to conduct a vast, untested social experiment on children as same-sex marriage will subject generations of children to the status of laboratory rats.
Today, same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society but this issue is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families; demanding a radical change to the understanding of family that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless. Indeed, gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships but they do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The mother of revolution and crime is poverty. Do you agree?
Revolution is a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. It is dependent upon some need or want in man to change something which he feels is impeding him. Therefore implies that a revolution needs to have certain sense of dissatisfaction, repression or disappointment at its heart. Crime on the other hand 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. Here is the link between these two: a man may commit a crime in order to get what he needs or wants. Take for example, if a person is poor and cannot afford to buy food, he might be forced to steal food. Hence this assertion rings its veracity like a fire alarm bell; I agree with Aristotle.
Indeed, poverty is the breeder of crime but there is a slight twitch. If a man chooses to be poor, he commits no crime in being poor, provided his poverty hurts no one but himself. However, if a man has others dependent upon him; there are a wife and children whom it is his duty to support, then, if he voluntarily chooses poverty, it is a crime. While a man who chooses to be poor cannot be charged with crime, it is certainly a crime to force poverty on others. It seems that the great majority of those who suffer from poverty are poor not from their own particular faults, but because of conditions imposed by society at large. Therefore I hold that poverty is a crime–not an individual crime, but a social one.
My theory is that poverty is related to crime but in exactly the opposite way, Crime causes poverty. All crime is about getting something stolen from you such as your name, property, innocence. When this happens, you become a victim of a crime and the consequence is poverty. To further prove my point, should the entire community be held hostage to criminals, no business would want to operate in the ghettos because of the high risks, people cannot go to schools because of fear and so forth.
I believe that crime has a direct link to family life. A large group of babies in New Zealand were studied over ten years of childhood, and then their risks of offending by the age of thirteen were analysed. It was found in 1992 that exposure to parental discord during middle and early childhood led to increased risks of offending later. Major changes at home of various kinds did not have the same effect. Another 1992 study of sixty five families in Texas with teenage sons looked at difficult child behaviour and parental relationship as perceived by the child. There was a strong link between parents who said they had great difficulties with their sons (out of control), and sons who said there was a lot of parental conflict at home. Thus the cause of delinquency is not poverty but parental strife.
Shifting our focus to revolution, in China, poverty is deemed to be shameful. The poor hide away or are told to do so thus they feel a “loss of face” caused by their condition. This creates resentment for being left poor, which can in turn lead to protests, riots and even a push for revolutionary change. However, there is a widespread perception that street protests are the first step to riots and ultimately revolution. This is misleading for there is a huge difference between protests and revolution. Revolution requires more than just an urge to change things; it needs a direction, where to lead the change.
Hence my stand is that poverty is not the causative agent it is made out to be for revolution. Empirical investigation shows that a country’s poverty has little correlation with its domestic violence. Moreover, a look at the biographies of leading revolutionaries makes clear that they come from middle and upper class families, and are usually well educated. This is clearly seen in the French Revolution. It was not poverty. Not a single poor man was a leader in the revolution. Every one of them was well fed and had a well-nourished brain.
As to what stimulates violence, it could be due to ethnic-racial issues, gender discrimination and so on.
To sum up my argument, there may be some truth in Aristotle’s philosophy but poverty is not the one and only root of crime and revolution. There are others as mentioned above.
Indeed, poverty is the breeder of crime but there is a slight twitch. If a man chooses to be poor, he commits no crime in being poor, provided his poverty hurts no one but himself. However, if a man has others dependent upon him; there are a wife and children whom it is his duty to support, then, if he voluntarily chooses poverty, it is a crime. While a man who chooses to be poor cannot be charged with crime, it is certainly a crime to force poverty on others. It seems that the great majority of those who suffer from poverty are poor not from their own particular faults, but because of conditions imposed by society at large. Therefore I hold that poverty is a crime–not an individual crime, but a social one.
My theory is that poverty is related to crime but in exactly the opposite way, Crime causes poverty. All crime is about getting something stolen from you such as your name, property, innocence. When this happens, you become a victim of a crime and the consequence is poverty. To further prove my point, should the entire community be held hostage to criminals, no business would want to operate in the ghettos because of the high risks, people cannot go to schools because of fear and so forth.
I believe that crime has a direct link to family life. A large group of babies in New Zealand were studied over ten years of childhood, and then their risks of offending by the age of thirteen were analysed. It was found in 1992 that exposure to parental discord during middle and early childhood led to increased risks of offending later. Major changes at home of various kinds did not have the same effect. Another 1992 study of sixty five families in Texas with teenage sons looked at difficult child behaviour and parental relationship as perceived by the child. There was a strong link between parents who said they had great difficulties with their sons (out of control), and sons who said there was a lot of parental conflict at home. Thus the cause of delinquency is not poverty but parental strife.
Shifting our focus to revolution, in China, poverty is deemed to be shameful. The poor hide away or are told to do so thus they feel a “loss of face” caused by their condition. This creates resentment for being left poor, which can in turn lead to protests, riots and even a push for revolutionary change. However, there is a widespread perception that street protests are the first step to riots and ultimately revolution. This is misleading for there is a huge difference between protests and revolution. Revolution requires more than just an urge to change things; it needs a direction, where to lead the change.
Hence my stand is that poverty is not the causative agent it is made out to be for revolution. Empirical investigation shows that a country’s poverty has little correlation with its domestic violence. Moreover, a look at the biographies of leading revolutionaries makes clear that they come from middle and upper class families, and are usually well educated. This is clearly seen in the French Revolution. It was not poverty. Not a single poor man was a leader in the revolution. Every one of them was well fed and had a well-nourished brain.
As to what stimulates violence, it could be due to ethnic-racial issues, gender discrimination and so on.
To sum up my argument, there may be some truth in Aristotle’s philosophy but poverty is not the one and only root of crime and revolution. There are others as mentioned above.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
In Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
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. 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.
On balance, I strongly feel that Szilagyi’s view of stressing social responsibility should be adopted although I concede that the freedoms of thought, speech and assembly mark the cornerstone of an enlightened and democratic society, especially since these rights are also enshrined in national constitutions and international law. I shall therefore start by discussing the validity of Singer’s position.
The right to free expression upholds the right of all to express their views openly and freely without fear or favour is critical for public participation in political life. Given the fact that Singapore adopts a representative government and subscribes to a democratic republic governed by the rule of law and the basic principles of human rights, citizens and residents of this free society should have this fundamental privilege.
Having said that, Singapore can still function as a democratic country without subjecting itself to unconditional right to free speech. Democratic governance is not just a matter of practising common principles – it is equally a matter of responding to social change. The triumph of human rights ideals does not rest on an intellectual vacuum but exists within a social-historical milieu. It involves the creative shaping of a social order that encourages people to value their stake in the context of the rights of other people. Peaceful democracy does not depend on brute force of compliance by all but on every citizen’s willingness to co-operate with his/her fellow countrymen of other creed and race. Thus, the sense of a shared community must prevail in order for democracy to flourish. Respect comes before rights.
Singapore is a multicultural society with a demographic Chinese majority and two main ethnic minorities – the Malays and the Indians. It is also part of a region dominated by Malay-Muslim geo-politics. History has taught its government to be sensitive to its social responsibility. The pre-independence disruption by the Malayan Communist Party and the recent economic recession – sandwiched by sporadic ethnic tensions domestically and regionally – have led to a model of nation-building primarily shaped by two principles of governance, namely racial harmony and economic development. Thus I believe that individual rights and personal freedoms should be subsumed under the broader context of social responsivility.
With reference to Szilagyi’s article, freedom of speech indirectly set off “mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of products”. This certainly contradicts Singer’s statement that “without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Looking at the incident brought out by Szilagyi, might it not be that it is precisely this unrestrained freedom that is the cause of the “roadblock”?
I also agree with Szilagyi that “media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group – traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.” and should instead place “more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” In that respect, an admirable task of the Singapore media is to help educate the public on national values that are conducive to racial harmony among a heterogeneous community in the city-state. This responsible approach is heavily rooted in experiences of racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s that occurred because of media-inflamed racial distrust and suspicion among the various communities.
Racial tensions were also fuelled by the presence of a communist threat from China, the homeland to the majority of the Singapore Chinese population. The communist insurgents controlled the Chinese vernacular media in the 60s to propagate ill will against the government and other races. Little wonder that social unrest is deemed one of the main flashpoints of national instability for a fledgling nation like Singapore.
Given this backdrop, social responsibility is perhaps the key to ensuring that our freedoms are exercised with restraint rather than unabated. It is a useful doctrine that claims that an entity has a responsibility to society. In all, there are six main stakeholders of social responsibility, namely employees, providers of finance, consumers, community/environment, government, and other groups. Social responsibility cannot be dictated but must be voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law (legal responsibility). It involves an attitude of being proactive towards a problem rather than be reactive to it.
There are two key reasons to support the practice of social responsibility.
First, people and organizations need each other. For example, social responsibility to employees extend beyond contractual terms of employment by according recognition to workers as human beings. Organizations have a moral obligation to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes towards their business, as well as the community at large. Firms should, for example, give due consideration to the design of work organization that makes every reasonable effort to provide equal employment for all racial groups. The recognition of this importance can be gauged in part by the extent of government action and legislation on matters such as equal opportunities for all.
Second, a pluralistic society is one where different groups can interact while showing a certain degree of tolerance and respect for one another; where different cultures can coexist without major conflict; and where minority cultures are encouraged to uphold their customs. In our increasingly diverse society, it is essential that people having plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities should live together in harmonious interaction and proper accord. Hence, I believe that government policies should favour the racial communities as the basic unit to be governed over that of individuals. In particular, the equal treatment of ethnicity should be considered as the cornerstone of national and regional harmony.
Thus I feel that Singaporeans should accept a reasonable amount of constraint on individual freedoms as a concession to the realisation of social and national security.Ultimately, the "mandate for pluralism" exhibits three "marks of acceptances", i.e. respect, reverence and refinement. To get there, we must descend into the depths of our own religious traditions to examine how they can co-exist with the practices of others. Exclusionist claims to faith must not be ignored or ridiculed, but rather understood, appreciated and transcended.
If we can understand the beauty of tolerance and respect, the price to pay for personal freedoms would seem so small and the rewards of harmonious living so enriching.
On balance, I strongly feel that Szilagyi’s view of stressing social responsibility should be adopted although I concede that the freedoms of thought, speech and assembly mark the cornerstone of an enlightened and democratic society, especially since these rights are also enshrined in national constitutions and international law. I shall therefore start by discussing the validity of Singer’s position.
The right to free expression upholds the right of all to express their views openly and freely without fear or favour is critical for public participation in political life. Given the fact that Singapore adopts a representative government and subscribes to a democratic republic governed by the rule of law and the basic principles of human rights, citizens and residents of this free society should have this fundamental privilege.
Having said that, Singapore can still function as a democratic country without subjecting itself to unconditional right to free speech. Democratic governance is not just a matter of practising common principles – it is equally a matter of responding to social change. The triumph of human rights ideals does not rest on an intellectual vacuum but exists within a social-historical milieu. It involves the creative shaping of a social order that encourages people to value their stake in the context of the rights of other people. Peaceful democracy does not depend on brute force of compliance by all but on every citizen’s willingness to co-operate with his/her fellow countrymen of other creed and race. Thus, the sense of a shared community must prevail in order for democracy to flourish. Respect comes before rights.
Singapore is a multicultural society with a demographic Chinese majority and two main ethnic minorities – the Malays and the Indians. It is also part of a region dominated by Malay-Muslim geo-politics. History has taught its government to be sensitive to its social responsibility. The pre-independence disruption by the Malayan Communist Party and the recent economic recession – sandwiched by sporadic ethnic tensions domestically and regionally – have led to a model of nation-building primarily shaped by two principles of governance, namely racial harmony and economic development. Thus I believe that individual rights and personal freedoms should be subsumed under the broader context of social responsivility.
With reference to Szilagyi’s article, freedom of speech indirectly set off “mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of products”. This certainly contradicts Singer’s statement that “without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Looking at the incident brought out by Szilagyi, might it not be that it is precisely this unrestrained freedom that is the cause of the “roadblock”?
I also agree with Szilagyi that “media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group – traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.” and should instead place “more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” In that respect, an admirable task of the Singapore media is to help educate the public on national values that are conducive to racial harmony among a heterogeneous community in the city-state. This responsible approach is heavily rooted in experiences of racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s that occurred because of media-inflamed racial distrust and suspicion among the various communities.
Racial tensions were also fuelled by the presence of a communist threat from China, the homeland to the majority of the Singapore Chinese population. The communist insurgents controlled the Chinese vernacular media in the 60s to propagate ill will against the government and other races. Little wonder that social unrest is deemed one of the main flashpoints of national instability for a fledgling nation like Singapore.
Given this backdrop, social responsibility is perhaps the key to ensuring that our freedoms are exercised with restraint rather than unabated. It is a useful doctrine that claims that an entity has a responsibility to society. In all, there are six main stakeholders of social responsibility, namely employees, providers of finance, consumers, community/environment, government, and other groups. Social responsibility cannot be dictated but must be voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law (legal responsibility). It involves an attitude of being proactive towards a problem rather than be reactive to it.
There are two key reasons to support the practice of social responsibility.
First, people and organizations need each other. For example, social responsibility to employees extend beyond contractual terms of employment by according recognition to workers as human beings. Organizations have a moral obligation to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes towards their business, as well as the community at large. Firms should, for example, give due consideration to the design of work organization that makes every reasonable effort to provide equal employment for all racial groups. The recognition of this importance can be gauged in part by the extent of government action and legislation on matters such as equal opportunities for all.
Second, a pluralistic society is one where different groups can interact while showing a certain degree of tolerance and respect for one another; where different cultures can coexist without major conflict; and where minority cultures are encouraged to uphold their customs. In our increasingly diverse society, it is essential that people having plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities should live together in harmonious interaction and proper accord. Hence, I believe that government policies should favour the racial communities as the basic unit to be governed over that of individuals. In particular, the equal treatment of ethnicity should be considered as the cornerstone of national and regional harmony.
Thus I feel that Singaporeans should accept a reasonable amount of constraint on individual freedoms as a concession to the realisation of social and national security.Ultimately, the "mandate for pluralism" exhibits three "marks of acceptances", i.e. respect, reverence and refinement. To get there, we must descend into the depths of our own religious traditions to examine how they can co-exist with the practices of others. Exclusionist claims to faith must not be ignored or ridiculed, but rather understood, appreciated and transcended.
If we can understand the beauty of tolerance and respect, the price to pay for personal freedoms would seem so small and the rewards of harmonious living so enriching.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.
As defined by Longman Dictionary, censor is to examine books, films, letters etc to remove anything that is considered offensive, morally harmful, or politically dangerous etc. Censorship prevents others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible. This is often so that conclusions drawn can be verified, or controls certain information and/or is using this control improperly or for its own benefits. I personally feel that censorship is necessary to a large extent.
Indeed, censorship maintains national security and ensures peace of the society. This is especially true for multi-racial and multi-religion countries such as Singapore. Ever wondered why her people are living together harmoniously under one roof regardless of race, language or religion when out there in other parts of the world, racial riots are breaking out with a snap of the fingers? Ever came across any article that criticizes another religion’s beliefs in our local newspapers or in other written materials sold here in Singapore? This is solely because the publication of these issues has been censored by the government of the Lion City. Unlike in other countries for example America, where freedom of speech is practised, the discrimination of the Blacks by the Whites has caused much pandemonium in the country. Countless of lives and properties have been destroyed. Clearly, when lives are at risk, censorship is no longer just a want but a necessity.
In addition, there is a growing concern with the rap music and hip hop industry. Research has shown that rap stars are encouraging early sexual behaviour and the demeaning of women. These increasing rates of early sexual activity have serious public health implications. Teenagers who have unplanned underage pregnancies are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. However, should these videos, containing the disturbing messages, have been censored earlier, the situation would not be so serious now. I believe that censorship is the cure to stop this poison from spreading as with its content not made known, adolescents will not be exposed and thus will not be badly influenced.
The internet and the world wide web are equally problematic. In the virtual world of these media, there is a potential for a kind of anonymous intimacy that can be very seductive in many of our fragmented, disconnected lives. Young people, often eager to explore these new media, are at the same time coping with the usual ‘coming-of-age’ problems in our society, may be susceptible to such seduction. After all, “the forbidden fruit is sweeter”. Thus censorship must be brought in to "protect" these weak-minded children from dangerous or disturbing ideas and information. For example, CyberPatrol, software that can filter out sites, blocked the access to the Ontario Religious Tolerance Site because it included Wicca among its 62 religious and ethical systems. Information of abortion, cults, the death penalty, and Satanism could also be found in this site.
However, I have to admit that we are burying our own heads in the sand with the mistaken notion that, therefore, children will not be exposed to these dangerous ideas. Such ostrich-like behavior focused our attention on banning things, thus diverted our energies from the very real educational process of helping them sort out, select, and look critically at the information and the individuals they would encounter in this virtual world. What is needed is perhaps not censorship but powerful and thoughtful dialogue focusing on inquiry and the development of personal judgment. The reality must not be sheltered for only then will tomorrow's adults be prepared to deal with the difficult decisions that will face them in the 21st century.
Hence in conclusion, I strongly feel that censorship is necessary when it is dealing with sensitive issues such as the above-mentioned. I am sure as a society, we want our people to be healthy both physically and mentally. No point in time must it be overused such that education is delayed.
Indeed, censorship maintains national security and ensures peace of the society. This is especially true for multi-racial and multi-religion countries such as Singapore. Ever wondered why her people are living together harmoniously under one roof regardless of race, language or religion when out there in other parts of the world, racial riots are breaking out with a snap of the fingers? Ever came across any article that criticizes another religion’s beliefs in our local newspapers or in other written materials sold here in Singapore? This is solely because the publication of these issues has been censored by the government of the Lion City. Unlike in other countries for example America, where freedom of speech is practised, the discrimination of the Blacks by the Whites has caused much pandemonium in the country. Countless of lives and properties have been destroyed. Clearly, when lives are at risk, censorship is no longer just a want but a necessity.
In addition, there is a growing concern with the rap music and hip hop industry. Research has shown that rap stars are encouraging early sexual behaviour and the demeaning of women. These increasing rates of early sexual activity have serious public health implications. Teenagers who have unplanned underage pregnancies are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. However, should these videos, containing the disturbing messages, have been censored earlier, the situation would not be so serious now. I believe that censorship is the cure to stop this poison from spreading as with its content not made known, adolescents will not be exposed and thus will not be badly influenced.
The internet and the world wide web are equally problematic. In the virtual world of these media, there is a potential for a kind of anonymous intimacy that can be very seductive in many of our fragmented, disconnected lives. Young people, often eager to explore these new media, are at the same time coping with the usual ‘coming-of-age’ problems in our society, may be susceptible to such seduction. After all, “the forbidden fruit is sweeter”. Thus censorship must be brought in to "protect" these weak-minded children from dangerous or disturbing ideas and information. For example, CyberPatrol, software that can filter out sites, blocked the access to the Ontario Religious Tolerance Site because it included Wicca among its 62 religious and ethical systems. Information of abortion, cults, the death penalty, and Satanism could also be found in this site.
However, I have to admit that we are burying our own heads in the sand with the mistaken notion that, therefore, children will not be exposed to these dangerous ideas. Such ostrich-like behavior focused our attention on banning things, thus diverted our energies from the very real educational process of helping them sort out, select, and look critically at the information and the individuals they would encounter in this virtual world. What is needed is perhaps not censorship but powerful and thoughtful dialogue focusing on inquiry and the development of personal judgment. The reality must not be sheltered for only then will tomorrow's adults be prepared to deal with the difficult decisions that will face them in the 21st century.
Hence in conclusion, I strongly feel that censorship is necessary when it is dealing with sensitive issues such as the above-mentioned. I am sure as a society, we want our people to be healthy both physically and mentally. No point in time must it be overused such that education is delayed.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?
By sentencing a person to death, it is tantamount to putting a stop to his life journey. His life and death lie in the hands of the judge and miscarriages of justice are irreversible. Any error in the decision-making can cause the wrongly accused to lose his head. I feel that humans should not play God by governing any thing that has to do with the taking of lives such as abortion and animal rights. Moreover, as stated by Voltaire, a French philosopher in the seventeenth century, “it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” In addition, death row can take years and are very costly especially to taxpayers. It is definitely unfair as they are indirectly getting punished for a crime they are not guilty of. Capital punishment may also encourage copycat crimes if the prisoner is seen as a martyr for example Mr Cho from Korea. Thus we can see that not only the individual is affected, the public is not let off either. More problems are being created instead of being solved.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Thus, I believe that rehabilitation should be favoured over the death penalty. Felons will be made to reenact the crime they committed. By seeing themselves as the third party, many would suddenly realize their grave mistake and willingly turn over a new leaf. After all, to err is human. Nobody is perfect and I am sure everyone deserves a second chance.
However, should there not be the existence of capital punishment, the national security will be at stake. With no fear of putting their heads on the chopper board, criminals such as terrorists, murderers and revolutionaries will roam the streets and strike terror in many innocent people’s hearts. Only with the death penalty put in place, can the national security be preserved and the public assured that their peace is not threatened. Moreover, it is technically sound to execute the prisoners than to keep them in life incarceration for they will be living off taxpayers dollars. Death is quick and causes less suffering than a long jail term as freedom is restricted. Hence capital punishment acts as a deterrent warning to others against the consequence of crime and also to prevent repeat offenses.
In conclusion, I disagree that death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another. Certainly capital punishment is lawful. We all know that the anticipation of death is definitely more fearful and painful than death itself. Therefore, my stand is that so long as the methods of execution are not cruel and humane, for example pulling the trigger of a pistol pointed at the back of the head (death is quick and the likelihood of human error is very minimal), the death penalty should not be abolished. I personally feel that all criminals should be given a chance to reform. Only those that crossed the line of moral/conscious, those that show no sign of remorse nor a single tinge of regret, should face the death penalty.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Thus, I believe that rehabilitation should be favoured over the death penalty. Felons will be made to reenact the crime they committed. By seeing themselves as the third party, many would suddenly realize their grave mistake and willingly turn over a new leaf. After all, to err is human. Nobody is perfect and I am sure everyone deserves a second chance.
However, should there not be the existence of capital punishment, the national security will be at stake. With no fear of putting their heads on the chopper board, criminals such as terrorists, murderers and revolutionaries will roam the streets and strike terror in many innocent people’s hearts. Only with the death penalty put in place, can the national security be preserved and the public assured that their peace is not threatened. Moreover, it is technically sound to execute the prisoners than to keep them in life incarceration for they will be living off taxpayers dollars. Death is quick and causes less suffering than a long jail term as freedom is restricted. Hence capital punishment acts as a deterrent warning to others against the consequence of crime and also to prevent repeat offenses.
In conclusion, I disagree that death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another. Certainly capital punishment is lawful. We all know that the anticipation of death is definitely more fearful and painful than death itself. Therefore, my stand is that so long as the methods of execution are not cruel and humane, for example pulling the trigger of a pistol pointed at the back of the head (death is quick and the likelihood of human error is very minimal), the death penalty should not be abolished. I personally feel that all criminals should be given a chance to reform. Only those that crossed the line of moral/conscious, those that show no sign of remorse nor a single tinge of regret, should face the death penalty.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Mass Media
With reference to the article titled " Singapore swimmers in hot water" on 3 April 2007.
How does the media and its subjective perception affect he way this incident was handled?
I believe that the reporting of events in the mass media more accurately reflects subjective perception rather than objective truth. Since perception involves all the senses and also giving meaning to all information a person takes in, different people can get different meanings from the same media. Perception is also affected by our belief systems, attitudes and needs.
In this incident, just a smile which the media perceived as a sign of mockery caused much controversy around the globe. It was even published in Sports Illustrated magazine, Californian newspaper Whittier Daily News and The Statesman in India. This matter became so serious that should the boys be found guilty, an official apology would be submitted. The reputation of Singapore and her friendship with America were put at stake.
However, we have no one to blame but ourselves for all these “false” reports. We are all guilty of wanting to know juicy news and more often than not, accurate information provided rarely satisfies the public. To worsen the situation, this industry has grown to become profit-driven due to the strong competition. Hence, journalists may well owe his or her professional regard for truthful reporting to everyone’s need for news – a critical element in a democratic society. So, instead of basing journalistic ethics in the fashionable moral philosophies of the modern era, it is better to argue that it grows out of the special nature of the craft, as imbedded in a more venerable notion of self fulfilling social responsibility.
Different people have different ways of expressing their emotions and reactions, let alone interpreting them. My stand is that one should not jump to conclusion but instead gather more information from different sources in order to learn the “whole” truth.
How does the media and its subjective perception affect he way this incident was handled?
I believe that the reporting of events in the mass media more accurately reflects subjective perception rather than objective truth. Since perception involves all the senses and also giving meaning to all information a person takes in, different people can get different meanings from the same media. Perception is also affected by our belief systems, attitudes and needs.
In this incident, just a smile which the media perceived as a sign of mockery caused much controversy around the globe. It was even published in Sports Illustrated magazine, Californian newspaper Whittier Daily News and The Statesman in India. This matter became so serious that should the boys be found guilty, an official apology would be submitted. The reputation of Singapore and her friendship with America were put at stake.
However, we have no one to blame but ourselves for all these “false” reports. We are all guilty of wanting to know juicy news and more often than not, accurate information provided rarely satisfies the public. To worsen the situation, this industry has grown to become profit-driven due to the strong competition. Hence, journalists may well owe his or her professional regard for truthful reporting to everyone’s need for news – a critical element in a democratic society. So, instead of basing journalistic ethics in the fashionable moral philosophies of the modern era, it is better to argue that it grows out of the special nature of the craft, as imbedded in a more venerable notion of self fulfilling social responsibility.
Different people have different ways of expressing their emotions and reactions, let alone interpreting them. My stand is that one should not jump to conclusion but instead gather more information from different sources in order to learn the “whole” truth.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Do you think professional parenting is the way to go for S'pore?
Professional Parents are foster parents who have been carefully selected, licensed, and specially trained to raise other people’s children. Over the last few decades, our culture has become less and less clear about its messages to parents and other guardians and educators of its children. Parents often experience doubts or guilt regarding the decisions they make for their children’s sake because they receive so much conflicting advice from various “experts” in the field of child rearing. Much of this confusion is a result of the rapid changes our society as a whole has been going through. Thus, I feel that parents should do without role models and scripts, let alone pushing their parental responsibilities to strangers, and let their hearts be their guide.
The life of the family is a learning experience for both the parents and children. The idea of family is to go through trial and tribulation together. I believe that parenting is about the process and not the end result. Natural parenting allows the parents to rein in their own expectations. This is because professional parenting is based on certain fixed philosophy. For an example, it could be based on the western idea of nursing and nurturing babies which may not be suitable for the Asian ways.
It is not an uncommon sight in Singapore to see both parents out working, leaving their children in the hands of the maids. While I agree that professional parenting makes parenting more efficient, family life is not about efficiency. There is a saying that “a home should be clean enough to be healthy but dirty enough to be happy.” Moreover, there has also been much focus on work-life balance. The five-day work-week and flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting and part-timing have made it much easier for officers to fulfil their responsibilities outside work, as well as to engage in other pursuits. Thus having insufficient time to take care of their children is not an excuse for parents to turn to professional parenting.
Journeys into unknown territory often involve taking two steps forward and one step back. Parents swell with pride in seeing their young ones make their first baby steps. Why not, then, take a little pride in their own? At the end of the day, would they want their babies to call them mummy or nanny?
The life of the family is a learning experience for both the parents and children. The idea of family is to go through trial and tribulation together. I believe that parenting is about the process and not the end result. Natural parenting allows the parents to rein in their own expectations. This is because professional parenting is based on certain fixed philosophy. For an example, it could be based on the western idea of nursing and nurturing babies which may not be suitable for the Asian ways.
It is not an uncommon sight in Singapore to see both parents out working, leaving their children in the hands of the maids. While I agree that professional parenting makes parenting more efficient, family life is not about efficiency. There is a saying that “a home should be clean enough to be healthy but dirty enough to be happy.” Moreover, there has also been much focus on work-life balance. The five-day work-week and flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting and part-timing have made it much easier for officers to fulfil their responsibilities outside work, as well as to engage in other pursuits. Thus having insufficient time to take care of their children is not an excuse for parents to turn to professional parenting.
Journeys into unknown territory often involve taking two steps forward and one step back. Parents swell with pride in seeing their young ones make their first baby steps. Why not, then, take a little pride in their own? At the end of the day, would they want their babies to call them mummy or nanny?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)