Sunday, September 16, 2007

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

In this age of globalisation, marriage is only a religious or merely sentimental, emotional type of personal domestic relationship. Consequently, there is no compelling reason for the state to value one as more significant than any other. However, in reality, it does not seem to suggest so for the social value of same-sex marriage. It is a highly controversial issue on whether it should be allowed or whether it is practical at all.

Economically, this perhaps would be the most significant reason for same-sex marriage to be practical. Especially in this age of globalization where countries are functionally integrated and interdependent, legalizing same-sex marriage would most probably bring millions of dollars worth of revenue into city and state coffers. New York Comptroller, Bill Thompson, estimates legalization of gay marriage would result in a boost of $142 million to the city and $184 million to the state in the first three years following the enactment of such a law. This is due to spending by both in and out-of-state couples as well as their guests, coupled with the fact that New York is a major tourist destination with 44 million foreign and American tourists each year according to New York City Statistics. Furthermore, due to the legalisation, it is highly lucrative for Economically More Developed Countries as not only homosexual foreign talents would be induced to contribute to the economy by working for the state, they would be attracted to migrate there. In this way, same-sex mariage is practical for the growth of the economy.

Socially, it is practical to remove discrimination from marriage laws so no family is treated as second-class and so marriage itself is resilient and relevant enough to meet the challenges of the new century. Apparently, marriage has changed to reflect changing social values, and should change again if it is to reflect society’s growing understanding and acceptance of same-sex relationships in the age of globalisation. Still, marriage remains important in modern Australia, not because it is unchanging, but precisely because it has kept pace with social change. Furthermore, countries where same-sex couples can marry, like Canada, Belgium or Spain, prove the point. After a long decline, the number of heterosexual couples marrying in those countries has increased, in part because allowing same-sex couples to wed has made marriage a more relevant and contemporary institution. Ending discrimination benefits couples and marriage itself. Most importantly, it benefits the society.

Looking from the perspective of children, there seems to be no difference between how heterosexual and homosexual couples raise them. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Decades of research has shown same-sex relationships are as enduring as those of heterosexuals are just as important in providing support and care, and that children raised by same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as their peers. Hence, gays are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. So why not allow partners in same-sex relationships both legal equality and an opportunity to officially celebrate and affirm their union?

However, same-sex marriage is impractical in this age of globalization. In the long term, there are repercussions on the country’s social order. Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code states that any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years. If the law is abolished, legalizing gay marriages will open the door to all kinds of insane behaviours. It would be difficult to draw the line on the identities of marriage partners. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. It would be overwhelming a bisexual wish to marry a homosexual. Consequently, there might be cases of strikes and movements in a bid to legitimise all types of marriages. Certainly, this is not ideal for the security and stability of the country. Inevitably, the economy would be adversely affected due to turned off investors.

Culture is what marks us as human; it is what distinguishes us and allows us to distinguish ourselves from other animals and, in this age of globalisation, from intelligent machines. In establishing a societal-cultural paradigm all human societies have focused on the two great events of every human life: birth and death. Marriage is a central part of the culture in a secular society — values, attitudes, beliefs — that surrounds birth. Hence, the legal recognition of marriage is important. Same-sex marriage would damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage – the inherent procreativity. Although there are new reproductive technoscience which opens up unprecedented modes of transmission of life, without it, we would have no means of delivering life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, through asexual replication (cloning). Hence, same-sex marriage would unavoidably change and eliminate this function of marriage.

In the final analysis, people should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. Furthermore, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, have human rights. As long as the union of two parties is legal, and would increase the social welfare in the long term, same-sex marriage is considered practical. However, it does take into account which country the issue is dealing with as different nations have different sets of cultural values and beliefs which would affect people’s acceptance of same-sex marriages. The fact that many are not willing to accept this same-sex marriage as their perception of gay relationships being immoral and unnatural says more about them than it does about gay marriage.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, September 10, 2007

Research

Globalization and Culture

Globalization - a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.

Culture - complex of learned behavior patterns and perceptions


What Is Globalization? -- http://www.globalization101.org/What_is_Globalization.html

What is Culture?
- http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm

-http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cfsi-icse/cil-cai/what_is_culture-.asplvl=3

-http://racerelations.about.com/od/skillsbuildingresources/g/culturedef.htm

Gorbachev Made Me Buy It (from mdm loh) - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/fashion/26ROW.html?ex=1343102400&en=a9089f23b75d1f63&ei=5090&partn

Culture and Globalization -- http://www.globalization101.org/issue/culture/

Why globalisation fails to deliver -- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/global/story/0,,764039,00.html

How does globalisation affect culture?Is it ‘Americanisation’? -- http://www.globalisationguide.org/07.html

In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture -- http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm



Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable Development

Environment - the air, water, soil, and plant and animal life - is constantly changing as natural processes and human actions affect it.

Biodiversity - Biodiversity is the variety of all living things, life on Earth and the natural patterns it forms; the different plants, animals and micro organisms, the genetic information they contain and the ecosystems they form

Sustainable Development -- balancing the fulfillment 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

Biodiversity -- http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Biodiversity.asp

Introduced Species:The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be Done -- http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html

Agroforestry and the Maintenance of Biodiversity -- http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/bichier.html

Ecotourism and Its Impact on Forest Conservation -- http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/lowman.html

The Ecological Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology -- http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/altieri.html

Biotechnology in Crops: Issues for the Developing World -- http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/oxfam_spinney.html

Sustainable Development -- http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development.asp

Sustaining Life on Earth -- http://www.cbd.int/convention/guide.shtml


Terrorism and War

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), terrorism is use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.

Terrorists often use threats to:
-Create fear among the public.
-Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism.
-Get immediate publicity for their causes.

Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons.

What is Terrorism? -- http://www.terrorism-research.com/

War on Terror -- http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror.asp

The politics of war -- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup14sep14,0,6733061.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Why Bush could be a fan of terror -- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,,1278644,00.html

Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58293-2004Jun21.html

US Attack on Iran: Leak, Lie or Scam? -- http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=80&contentid=4682&page=2

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 27, 2007

Research on Other Forms of Discrimination

Lookism
- a discrimination or prejudice based on a person's physical

Ageism
- a form of stereotype and prejudice against individuals or groups due to their age

Disablism
- discrimination against disabled people
- discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others

Xenophobia
- a form of prejudice against strangers
- fear and dislike of strangers/foreigners or members of other races, ethnic groups or nationalities other than one’s own

Posted by at No comments:

“If people became ill, it is largely their own fault.” How far do you agree? (A’ Level 02’)

Being ill is an inevitable and complex issue one has to face as an individual. Due to a lack of sufficient attention to one’s health, man is susceptible to illness and disease. Not only people suffer from infirmity, they are not in a state of completely physical, mental and social well-being. However, is the role of an individual the only factor which is responsible for good health? I beg to differ.

People should be responsible to one’s health through their food consumption. If people do not control their diet and consume without discipline, the fault lies within the individual when the consequence of being ill arises. Take fast foods for example, people may consume it for the benefit of convenience or just for the aim of satisfying their food cravings. When people are unable to resist their overwhelming desire, they would most often overindulge which would be a bane to their health. According to Food and Drug Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, reports that trans fat, like saturated fat and dietary cholesterol, raises the levels of LDL cholesterol or bad cholesterol and lowers the levels of HDL cholesterol or good cholesterol. Furthermore, triglyceride levels and lipoprotein levels increase. This in turn escalates the risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. Hence, it is one’s responsibility to resist their cravings and search for alternatives like steamed or grilled skinless chicken which is healthier. When people become ill eventually due to their choice as well as the failure to change their diet, it is their own fault.

Not only is the above factor, personal lifestyle choice is also one reason which contributes to people getting ill. The lack of healthy habits as well as having an inappropriate pace of life will impact one’s health adversely. According to data from the American Heart Association, there is a cause and effect relationship between smoking and coronary heart disease. Moreover, according to the Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, smoking makes blood flow restricted due to the buildup of small fatty deposits, or plaques, on the artery wall. Thus, smoking has been linked to atherosclerosis - clogging of the arteries. Once the buildup has become significant, it may cause heart attacks, abnormal heart rhythms and angina. Furthermore, findings from the World Health Organization (WHO) on risk factors suggest that sedentary lifestyle is one of the ten leading causes of death and disability in the world. Physical inactivity increases all causes mortality, doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and obesity. It also increases the risks of colon and breast cancer, high blood pressure, lipid disorders, osteoporosis, depression and anxiety. Hence, people should adopt a healthy, active lifestyle coupled with regular exercises which would be beneficial to their health in the long run. Therefore, it is people’s fault when they become ill due to the choice of the way people want to lead their lives.

On the contrary, it is not entirely people’s fault when they become ill as environmental factors play a part in this. The environment which people lives in is beyond their control although they can play their role as responsible citizens by protecting the environment like not littering and polluting. What the government decides for the country and its people is largely out of the citizens’ control to change any highly authorized decision. For instance, the WHO has reported that many governments simply cannot afford to perform their essential public health functions. Funds are presently inadequate and new solutions are being explored, but countries must remain in the driver’s seat. In this way, when citizens are not attended to when the need arises. Furthermore, when industries operate and hence, emit pollutants and waste, they cause air, water, and noise pollution. Inevitably, people’s health would be affected and could thus get frequent asthma attacks, breathing problems. In these cases, are people still at fault that they become ill when things are beyond their control?

The most controversial factor affecting people’s health is poverty. With globalization, the economic gaps between developed countries and developing countries widen. Why do poverty still surface in some Economically More Developed Countries then? The WHO has accounted that more developing countries now have pockets of wealth that attract the lion’s share of spending on health. More wealthy countries have growing urban slums and shanty towns, often populated by immigrants, which drain health resources and strain the social welfare system. In addition, developing countries are experiencing a dramatic rise in chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and asthma. Hence, these diseases thrive in impoverished settings, and they deepen poverty, leaving people to live in a vicious poverty cycle. People simply cannot help it when the country they are living in is incapable of providing the essential health care required. Therefore, it is not people’s fault that they become ill.

In the final analysis, there is no doubt that when people become ill due to a matter of choice, it is their own fault. As stated by Virgil, the greatest wealth is health. Just like what Carrie Latet has said, “If you don’t take care of yourself, the undertaker will overtake that responsibility for you.” However, the incrimination should not lie on the people when conditions are beyond their control.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Response to April 16, 2007 TIME magazine’s article: ‘Dad’s Dilemma’ by Liam Fitzpatrick

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1606878-1,00.html

Evaluation:

On the issue of parenting, Fitzpatrick has reported that fathers all over Asia share that sense of guilt over their inability to balance work and parenthood. However, it was an epoch-shifting change for the role of a father. Responsibilities of the sole breadwinner could be ceased the moment he crossed the threshold of his home, but today, with the emancipation of women, he has to stimulate their children intellectually and emotionally just as much as mothers do. Therefore, incentives and assistance are provided by the governments to encourage fathers to make the dramatic shift. Most importantly, Fitzpatrick brought out the point that dealing with the myriad commitments, being ingenious in time management, accepting that being a parent means being responsible for both the material and emotional welfare of your children is the new way of Asian fatherhood.

Analysis:

In today’s Asian societies, fathers find it extremely hard to be fully involved with their children because of several factors. One of them is their hectic and busily-scheduled working lifestyle. Due to business commitments, fathers would often at times be summoned for business trips to foreign countries. Hence, this rips off the quality time which the fathers could have spent with their children. As mentioned by Fitzpatrick, when stress goes up for a father, it affects not only the quantity of time he spends with his children but the quality. I agree with Fitzpatrick because the abilities to rationalize and prioritize between work and family diminish with the deep job commitments, fear of getting retrenched as one’s career responsibilities increase with age and the belief that slogging as hard as possible equates to quality life for the family.

To eventually close up the relationship gap between fathers and children, a higher authority should take the initiative to make a change. As suggested by Fitzpatrick, it is the boss who leads by example, the person who can convince men to spend more time with their families. When Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) or department heads try to balance their own lives, instead of merely urging subordinates to do so, then everyone benefits. Any change in attitude works best when the tone at the top stipulates what the corporate culture will be. On an individual scale, each father can improvise ways to boost the time they spend with his children like gathering the courage to negotiate with his boss to adjust his working hours or have a less demanding job to perhaps get home in time to have lunch with his children. Each and little insignificant effort can amount to a radical change eventually.

Relation to Singapore’s context:

Due to Singaporeans being so methodical and conscientious in their professional lives, as expressed by Fitzpatrick, the firms and the government has introduced incentives to encourage men to balance between work and family – to spend more time with their children. At International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), 70% of the 3000 mostly male employees regularly participate in the firm’s “mobility program”, which lets them work from home as long as they can be contacted via email or phone. In addition, fathers are allowed to work twenty-two half-days in every six months if they use that extra time for family purposes. Furthermore, the government has implemented the five-day work week since January 2005 in a bid to allow more quality time for the whole family. Also, establishments, especially the larger ones, grant paternity leave to their male employees. Most importantly, in a meritocratic Singapore, there are monetary bonuses which place emphasis on family ties for workers so as to relief their stress and burden from supporting the family.

With more involvement in the family, fathers are much closer to their children, work productivity and efficiency increases. This is because men who play a fuller role at home often find it energizing and cheering rather than an additional cause of exhaustion. Thus, they are able to focus and contribute during work at a much higher rate than before.

In the final analysis, this has not only made the achievement of the 5Cs – Cash, Credit card, Car, Condo, Career - the criteria which determine the social wealth of Singaporean so that family will have a higher quality of life, more effective, another C – Children, can be added to the list. Both Singapore and its people benefit in the long run. Why not?
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, August 16, 2007

“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty." (Aristotle) Do you agree?

Poverty is a state if people’s income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to exclude them from having an acceptable standard of living. As a result of inadequate income and resources, people may be excluded and marginalized from participating in activities which are considered the norm for other people in the modern globalizing society of today. I agree to Aristotle’s quote to a small extent as revolution and crime are not the only consequences of poverty. Furthermore, these issues are somehow interconnected.

Revolution and crime can result due to the actions of governments that led to the poverty of many. The government may not deliver their promises to its people due to it being corrupted. Hence, when the citizens find that their message is not being brought across to the upper levels, they take their own actions. Furthermore, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” This gave people the incentive to do evil.

Just like the people of Russia resented the autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II and his corrupt government. He was out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the Russians. Moreover, there were few opportunities for fair advancement of peasants and industrial workers. Economically, widespread inflation and food shortages in Russia contributed to the revolution. This further strengthened Russia's view of Nicholas II as weak and unfit to rule. Ultimately, these factors, coupled with the development of revolutionary ideas and movements, like the peaceful march which led to the 1905 Bloody Sunday massacre, led to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

However, not only does poverty leads to revolution and crime, greed, desire and ignorance contribute. An aspect of what greed and desire can make one do is corruption which is mentioned in the example above of the Tsar. Corporate crime, like evasion of taxes, fraud, ignoring environmental regulations, violating labour rights, results in United States. In the US, Benjamin Barber, professor of Political Philosophy estimates that corporate crime costs the country about $200 billion a year. Events after September 11, 2001, have highlighted massive corporate failures and controversies all the way up to the President. In the New York Times, July 29, 2002, Barber highlights that even in the most freest of societies, the United States, corporate influences have been so strong as to undermine fundamental democratic principles. This is shown here, “But business malfeasance ... arises from a failure of the instruments of democracy, which have been weakened by three decades of market fundamentalism, privatization ideology and resentment of government.... The truth is that runaway capitalists, environmental know-nothings, irresponsible accountants, amoral drug runners and antimodern terrorists all flourish because we have diminished the power of the public sphere. By privatizing government functions and refusing to help create democratic institutions of global governance, America has relinquished its authority to control these forces.”

No doubt that poverty plays a role in causing revolution and crime; we should not disregard the fact that the situation today is a vicious cycle. For instance, older Singaporeans might find it difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of Singaporeans and level with the nation’s economy status. Even though there is meritocracy in Singapore, they find it hard to excel due to their low literacy level as well as the decrease in their capability of learning new knowledge. Inevitably, they might find it unfair because of unequal job opportunities. There are an increasing number of poor people who are missing out on the benefits of economy growth. Take for example, cleaners who can range from thirty-five to sixty years old, their incomes are not proportional to the increase in the nation’s income. A monthly income of $550 can even fall to a $400 in Singapore. Despite Singapore’s booming economy, why do these circumstances keep on surfacing?

Sometimes, desperation can make one do the unthinkable. In a feat to overthrow the government so that the people themselves can rule the country and decide what and how much they can possess, crime and revolution results, making the country’s economy fall due to instability which turns off foreign investors and tourists – the two key engine towers of Singapore’s booming industries. Thus, this in turn leads to poverty. This vicious cycle is never-ending. In addition, ghettos or places where crime thrives are ‘ghost towns’ to foreigners. For example, crime rates are soaringly high in Middle-Eastern countries like Pakistan and Iraq. Foreign investors and visitors would be discouraged to visit due to the fear of danger. In this way, these countries suffer economically, leading to escalating poverty.

Poverty is explained by individual circumstances or characteristics of poor people. Some examples are: amount of education, skill; health, handicaps, age; work orientation, time horizon (the interval during which an investment program is to be completed); discrimination, together with race, sex, etc. Generally, there is no correct explanation of poverty. It is determined by case and generic effect. For instance, poverty is explained by general, economy-wide problems, such as inadequate employment opportunities, inadequate overall demand (macro problems, macro policy), low national income (Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product) usually in Economically Less Developed Countries. I would say that poverty is caused by one set of forces (general, economy-wide problems) but distributed according to the individuals.

In the final analysis, it would do poverty a real injustice if it were to be accused of being the sole factor of causing revolution and crime. Perhaps, shouldn’t people of today’s globalizing world take a step back and reflect on whether they themselves are the real culprit of this created mess?
Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Evaluation & Analysis of Passages with Application to Singapore’s Context

Author A's Passage

Discrimination against one’s sexuality has been a timeless sociological trend. If a man were queer, he would never dare to reveal his sexual orientation in public. He would instead choose to live in the shadow of his true identity, even going so far as to get married and start a family.

Often the legislation of a country does not recognize the rights of homosexuals because same-sex partnership is a violation of essential biological determination – that a man and a woman are required to procreate and form a child.

Same-sex marriage would also cause social disorder as a result of its violation of time-honoured traditions, since the fabric of society has long been held together by the institution of male-female marriage, followed by the reproduction of offspring from that union. Homosexual unions would require adoptive procedures, artificial insemination and sperm donor programs. All these are economically unsound and would drain the resources of the government.


Author B's Passage

Discrimination against one’s sexuality is a basic violation of human’s rights. It suggests that he right to marry or love another is controlled by the state. Two people should have the absolute freedom in deciding whoever they chose to live or start a family with.

Often the legislation of a country encroaches on the rights of individuals to form partnerships and start their own families. It can be argued that heterosexual couplings would not always mean more stable marriages as this has yet to be proven scientifically.

It can also be argued that because homosexual couples have to take great efforts to adopt a child, they would value their families a lot more than biological parents, reducing the rate of divorce, child-abuse and social dysfunction. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, and the gay community tens to be close-knit, since they have to stick together for mutual help and support. Children raised in this environment of open-need and acceptance would benefit positively.

1. EVALUATE the 2 passages.
2. COMMENT on each author’s view, adding your own (quote pertinent words or phrases where applicable)
3. RELATE to your country’s context


1. Both passages are relatively similar in their structure and presentation of ideas. The first paragraph in Author A’s passage shows the consequence of sexual discrimination which is “If a man were queer, he would never dare to reveal his sexual orientation in public…choose to live in the shadow of his true identity.” Furthermore, it showed how unacceptable unrecognized sexual preferences are. Correspondingly, paragraph one in Author B’s passage pointed out that there are no freedom rights. This is seen here, “basic violation of human rights”, “right to marry or love another is controlled by the state”.

The second paragraph in Author A’s passage showcases that the reason for homosexuality to be unrecognized is due to the ‘essential biological determination’ that only a sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is possible to form a child. Similarly, in Author B’s passage, it identifies that there was a right but this right is gradually robbed away by restrictions enforced by the country on choosing sex partners.

In the last paragraph of Author A’s passage, it showed the consequences as well as disadvantages of having homosexuality which is going against the traditions that are acceptable for a long time. The cons are cost are incurred by the country which would in turn ‘drain the resources of the government’. Likewise, in Author B’s paragraph, it states that responsibility as well as advantages of homosexuality which includes “reducing the rates of divorce…social dysfunction”, “children raised in this environment of open-ness and acceptance would benefit positively. These paragraphs depict the pros and cons of homosexuality.

Although the presentation of ideas is similarly, both passages have a subtle difference in the arguments as well as in the flow of ideas.


2. In Author A’s passage, to show the repercussions of the everlasting sec discrimination, he provided an example which could relate to the readers the severity of the consequences. This showed that the author related the consequences of sex discrimination with shame, thus avoidance. I believe this is indeed truthful as that particular person would feel rejected as there is no place for him in the modern society like Singapore. The general public looks at him differently, treating him like some abnormality. Nonetheless, an adverse impact in the form of great stress and pressure would be exerted upon him, making him run and escape from reality.

Concurrently, in Author B’s passage, there is much credibility in the claim that sexual discrimination is a ‘violation of human rights’, ‘controlled by the state’. This is because indeed the author also believes in it, as seen from here ‘people should have absolute freedom’. Furthermore, the Home Affairs Ministry in Singapore has indicated that Section 377A of the Penal Code (S377A) will be retained. This surfaced how serious sexual discrimination should be treated. S377A prohibits the commission of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. Although intimate acts like sodomy is an unhealthy act that carries higher risks of sexually transmitted infections, and hence should be disallowed for gays, it is itself highly discriminatory as many lesbians and heterosexuals also engage in sexual acts that guys perform. Therefore, even multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore violated and robbed the basic human rights of citizens.

In the second paragraph of Author A’s passage, the view that “same-sex partnership is a violation of essential biological determination – that a man and a woman are required to procreate and form a child” as a reason for the government not to ‘recognize the rights of homosexuals’ is too vague. If the Malays and Indians are not to be discriminated against in this multi-racial country, then this principle should be extended to the gay community as well. Minority rights like homosexual rights are fundamental rights which must be protected. The government ought to play an active role in returning the rights to homosexuals or others with different sexual orientation. Basic civil rights are a necessary part of an open and thriving multicultural and cosmopolitan Singapore. Perhaps, even racial harmony and sexual harmony can integrate. Probably, the reason behind the sex discrimination are that the public is stereotyping, being afraid that something is different, hence making them feel insecure. To feel safe and secure, people thus discriminate.

On the other hand, in the second paragraph of Author B’s passage, the argument that ‘rights of individuals’ are ‘encroached’ showed that he felt there was a right but was taken away by the government. This projected restrictions on choosing sex partners, regardless the issue of homosexuality and heterosexuality. However, the author seems to hint that the country restricts homosexuals as he argued, doubting the credibility of heterosexuality, shown here, “heterosexual couplings would not always mean more stable marriages” but defending homosexuals in the third paragraph, stating the advantages of homosexuality, like ‘value their families a lot more than biological parents’, ‘children raised in this environment of open-ness and acceptance would benefit positively’. However, it is not always true that homosexual couples will value their families more and ensure a better life for the children because separation or divorce is unpredictable. It is inaccurate to assume that ‘the gay community tends to be close-knit’. Are gays and homosexuals not human beings that will quarrel and fight?

Lastly, in the third paragraph of Author A’s passage, the author expressed that “same-sex marriage would also cause social disorder as a result of its violation of time-honoured traditions”. Furthermore, he emphasized the reason was “male-female marriage, followed by the reproduction of offspring from that union”. However, I felt that this reason is insufficient and should be coupled with the fact that the question should be whether it is right or wrong to continue suppressing the voices and acts of the homosexual community.

In the final analysis, it is the rights of a community who want their lifestyles decriminalized, and they never should be made criminals simply for who they are. If this intolerance is imported into multi-racial Singapore, this will result in social division. The fundamental question is not whether one finds homosexuality morally offensive, it is whether the concept and practice of non-discrimination, like sex, should be extended to all.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Examination (reading with inference) the writer’s Tone, Attitude and Purpose

"Blasphemous Rumours" – Depeche Mode (an electronic band formed in 1980 in Essex, England)

  1. Girl of sixteen, whole life ahead of her
    Slashed her wrists, bored with life
    Didn’t succeed, thank the lord for small mercies
  2. Fighting back the tears, mother reads the note again
    Sixteen candles burn in her mind
    She takes the blame, its always the same
    She goes down on her knees and prays
  3. I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours
    But I think that gods got a sick sense of humour
    And when I die I expect to find him laughing
  4. Girl of eighteen, fell in love with everything
    Found new life in jesus christ
    Hit by a car, ended up on a life support machine
  5. Summers day, as she passed away
    Birds were singing in the summer sky
    Then came from the rain, and once again
    A tear fell from her mothers eye

Evaluation:

According to Wikipedia, the two incidents mentioned in the lyrics to "Blasphemous Rumours" are reportedly based on true stories. Singer Dave Gahan tells the story of a sixteen-year-old girl's failed attempt to kill herself by slitting her wrists, and the story of an eighteen-year-old girl who renews her faith in God only to be struck by a car, end up on life support, and die shortly afterwards. The conclusion: "I think that God's got a sick sense of humour, and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing." However, even though the stories depicted in the two seperate verses are of two different girls, this is not made clear. The lyrics are written in a way that one could believe that the second verse is about the same girl two years later.

The writer’s tone is mocking and sarcastic. From the first stanza, the writer praises the lord for being compassionate and benevolent by saving the sixteen-year-old girl from ending her file, hence, giving her a chance to explore and experience the wonders of life. This is inferred from here, “thank the lord for small mercies”. However, in the fourth stanza, another eighteen-year-old girl who has picked up the faith in God, only to meet with an accident. This showed the definite contrast between the mercy and cruelty of God. In the conclusion shown in the third stanza, the writer is explicitly expressing his scoff towards the almight God. This is shown here, “And when I die I expect to find him laughing”.

The writer’s attitude is disrespectful. He is irreverent towards what is held to be sacred. The third stanza, “I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours But I think that gods got a sick sense of humour And when I die I expect to find him laughing” clearly expressed his sarcasm and audacity to contempt God.

The writer’s purpose is to criticize the divine God to show the supporters of their band that God is not at all humanitarian after all, which can easily manipulate anyone’s fate and destiny, regardless of the person’s welfare and the state that he could be enjoying at the moment. It showed the extent of God’s empathy, even to the breadth of His Almighty’s apathy. Perhaps, his ultimate motive could be to diminish and divert the people’s faith and trust in God to the band, making them the new Worshipped. In this way, people who came across this song can witness how different Depeche Mode dare to be and thus, begin to support and idolize just like towards the Holy One.

Posted by at 1 comment:

June Holidays 2007 Blogging Task

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start off, the freedom of expression is a vital concept in any modern democracies of being able to receive, and impart information or ideas, regardless of the medium used, without censorship. Fundamentally, the opinions made in both articles by Peter Singer and Zsofia Szilagyi are valid. Personally, I think that Szilagyi’s view that more focus should be placed on social responsibility, should be adopted in Singapore, rather than Singer’s view of freedom of expression being essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religion pluralism, the government plays a vital role in legislating laws, meting out rules and regulations, and looking after the public interests. Hence, decision-making is a critical precedent process to a maximized social welfare. Evaluations, discussions and considerations would be made among the different races, thus, enhancing mutual understandings between people of differences. Definitely, a heated debate that can improve racial understandings and perhaps, discover solutions is preferred over violence that could arise because of the lack of freedom of expression.

Moreover, the freedom of expression is particularly vital to the government as it can understand how people feel and think on various racial issues. Furthermore, any creative ideas would not be restricted which is fundamental to Singapore’s social progress. Ultimately, it is Singaporeans that make up Singapore. The public will get a clear idea of why and how the government implements the policies, how these actions benefit them, perhaps through national rallies. Through this, improvements can be made that will increase the standard of living. Similarly, different people of different races, languages, religions, cultures, can enhance their understanding on one another, clearing any doubts or misconceptions. This is important such that not only relationships between the government and its people are strong, people of different races can also interact, developing trust in each other.

Rumours, false accusations, unfair criticisms would be spread that will harm racial harmony in the case without freedom of expression in a democratic Singapore. Thus, freedom of expression is an emphasis, especially in a multi-racial Singapore, but with a limit. Just like what Szilagyi expressed: “……no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. But when newspapers insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not - alone - create the context and lifespan of their messages.” News and information conveyed through newspapers can be temporary as time goes by because people might forget, but by speculations, the damage caused can be permanent like psychological harm.

With freedom of expression however, criticisms or any insensitivities should not cross the line that will result in racial tensions. For instance, Muslim rage has been provoked due to the publish of Prophet Muhammad’s caricature, the 1964 race riots that started because of racial misunderstandings and speculations between the Malays and the Chinese. Singapore cannot let history repeats itself. If this view of Singer: “…freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha,” is expressed in Singapore, racial conflicts are bound to occur. There must a limit to freedom of expression for a multi-racial Singapore. This is where social responsibility comes into place.

As stated by Szilagy, “……raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.” indeed is difficult as he also expressed “that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam.” Perhaps, under considerations of having freedom of expression as much as possible, legal actions should only be implemented where there is an absolute need to prevent infliction of actual harm or to protect the citizen’s rights.

Therefore, a balance must be struck between the ability of individuals to be unrestricted in the free expression of thoughts and ideas, and the ability of the government to effectively and efficiently enforce law to preserve the rights of individuals. Nonetheless, individuals should accept that rules are applicable to all and thus, have to be responsible in their expression.

In conclusion, in Singapore, there should be freedom of expression in the consideration of public interests through social responsibilities so that opinions on certain issues can be brought across at the same time, without racial tensions and conflicts. Hence, cultural and racial harmony can be maintained without jeopardizing any citizen’s rights and interests, ensuring a maximal social welfare. Therefore, Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Research on Life & Death Issues

Euthanasia
Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition. http://www.dictionary.com/

It is legal in some nations, while in others it may be criminalized. Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of conflicting moral feelings both for the individual and between different cultures, ethnicities, religions and other groups. The subject is explored by the mass media, authors, film makers and philosophers, and is the source of ongoing debate and emotion.

- Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal in a presumably painless or minimally painful way, usually by lethal injection.

- Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals.

- Non-agressive Euthanasia
Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial.
- Agressive Euthanasia
Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.

- Involuntary Euthanasia
Involuntary Euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and equates to murder. This kind of euthanasia is almost always considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated.

- Non-voluntary Euthanasia
Non-voluntary Euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient.

- Voluntary Euthanasia
Voluntary Euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial.

Why is Euthanasia good or bad? Justification... YES or NO

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


Pro-Choice
-Supporting or advocating legalized abortion

-Favouring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term

-Describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy.

Pro-Life
-Opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life

-Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion



Ritual Suicide

-act of suicide motivated by a religious, spiritual, or traditional ritual

-Hindu custom:

  • An extreme interpretation of Hindu custom historically practiced, mostly in the 2nd millennium, was self-immolation by a widow as an assurance that she will be with her husband for the next life.

-Other rituals of self-immolation or self-starvation were used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks for religious or philosophical purposes, or as a form of extreme non-violent protest.

-China:

  • some groups would practice suicide for similar reasons.

-Japan:

  • rituals of suicide like seppuku were practiced

Seppuku

  • (hara-kiri ) [Jap.,=belly-cutting]

- the traditional Japanese form of honorable suicide
-practiced by the Japanese feudal warrior class in order to avoid falling into enemy hands

-Around 1500, it became a privileged alternative to execution, granted to daimyo and samurai guilty of disloyalty to the emperor.

-The condemned man received a jeweled dagger from the emperor. He selected as his second a faithful friend, received official witnesses, and plunged the dagger into the left side of his abdomen, drew it across to the right, and made a slight cut upward; his second then beheaded him with one stroke of a sword, and the dagger was returned to the emperor.

-Around 1700, it became permissible to go through a semblance of disembowelment prior to beheading.

-Voluntary hara-kiri was resorted to after a private misfortune, out of loyalty to a dead master, or to protest the conduct of a living superior.

http://www.answers.com/topic/seppuku-1

Is SUICIDE justified? When is suicide being ACCEPTED?


Jack Kevorkian/Suicide Machine
  • Early On

-His fascination with death began with a desire to extend life.

-He argued for anesthetizing death row inmates before execution, if they consented, for the purpose of organ harvesting and medical experiments. This campaign was undercut by a swing at that time in the public opinion against capital punishment.

-He earned the nickname "Dr. Death" when he did research on the eyes of dying patients. He would photograph the retinas of their eyes at the exact moment of death and found that the corneas become invisible at this moment. He did this in hope of helping doctors distinguish between death and comas.

  • 1970s

-Kevorkian served as a pathologist at hospitals in Michigan and California.
-Found it difficult to get support for his position on anesthetized organ donation for death row inmates.
-His version of euthanasia was even rejected by the Hemlock Society for being to susceptible to abuse.

  • The Suicide Machine

-In the late 80s Kevorkian built a machine that helped people to commit suicide by giving them a narcotic followed by a lethal dose of potassium chloride.
-This machine enables disabled suicide candidates to kill themselves at the mere touch of a button.

  • Dr. Death's Advertising Tactics

-His search for a first patient began when he started placing ads in the newspaper classified section
-Example Business Card: Jack Kevorkian, MD...Bioethics...Special Death Counseling. By Appointment Only.

-In March of 1990 a Detroit newspaper carried this article: "Applications are being accepted. Oppressed by a fatal disease, a severe handicap, or a crippling deformity? Write BOX 264, Royal Oak, Mich. 48068-0261. Show him proper compelling medical evidence that you should die, and Dr. Jack Kevorkian will help you kill yourself free of charge."

-One rejected "patient" was a woman with multiple sclerosis who, he explained, was "not a suitable candidate for the first use of his death machine" because her situation wouldn't garner the favorable coverage he needed for the "initial event".


-1990- 1st client was Jane Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient, from Portland Oregon. Since then he has helped over 130 people kill themselves.

  • Crossing the Line

-In 1998 Kevorkian stepped outside of the boundaries of passive euthanasia to active euthanasia when he gave a man lethal injection, rather than simply providing the means for the man to kill himself.
-He videotaped this and it was aired on CBS's Sixty Minutes. He dared prosecutors to charge him with murder.
-In 1999 prosecutors found him guilty of murder and sentenced him 10 to 25 years in prison.

  • Is Jack Kevorkian Qualified to Deal With Depressed and Dying People?

* His professional experience has been primarily in the field of pathology (dealing with death bodies and body parts)
* With the exception of his residency and his military service in the 1950s, he has no clinical experience with live patients
*He has zero training or expertise in diagnosing or treating depression, and is completely lacking in any education or expertise in the fields of internal medicine, geriatrics, psychiatry, and neurology
*He has admitted that he is not qualified to practice medicine, even as a general practitioner. However, he has stated that the decision about who is worthy to use his death machine is based on his medical expertise.
*He does not have a license to practice medicine. His Michigan license was suspended in 1991 and his California license was suspended in 1993.

-According to the California Attorney General's office, Kevorkian is "fundamentally unfit to practice medicine".
-Jack Kevorkian has constantly violated most of the rules and stands he publicly claims to follow
(Data taken from June 1990 (total= 47 suicides)

-Kevorkian says that those who qualify for his help suffer from afflictions that are incurable or cannot be treated without intolerable side effects
-60 % of his patients were not terminal. At least 17 could have lived indefinitely and, in 13 cases the people had no complaints of pain
-Autopsies of at least 3 of his suicides revealed no disease at all
-Kevorkian says that it is always necessary to bring in a psychiatrist because a person's "mental state is of paramount importance"
-In 19 cases Kevorkian did not contact psychiatrists
-In 5 of those 19 cases the person who dies had a history with depression
  • Supporters of Physician Assisted Suicide Who Disagree With Jack Kevorkian

There are many people who support Euthanasia but not the practices of Jack Kevorkian. For Kevorkian, each case is handled differently. There is no consistency and it seems as if he is randomly picking who gets to die that day/week/month. in some cases he would follow his rules yet in others they were completely disregarded.

http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/death02/euthan/Jack%20Kevorkian.htm




Terri Schiaro

PINELLAS PARK - Terri Schiavo suffered heart failure in 1990, when she was 26 years old, lapsing into a persistent vegetative state. For years, Michael Schiavo, her husband, fought to have the feeding tube keeping his wife alive, removed. He said his wife told him she would not want to live like this. Schiavo's parents wanted their daughter to remain alive. The battle involved the courts, the Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush. Schiavo died at on March 31, 2005 at the Pinellas Park hospice where she lay for years while her husband and her parents fought over her fate in the nation's most bitter - and most heavily litigated - right-to-die dispute.

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder.'' Do you agree?

According to the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences.

Personally, I do not agree to the statement that the death penalty is murder. I believe it is a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime. Inevitably, it would definitely have some significant impact on the emerging wrong-doer to pause before he proceeds when he knew he could jolly well be executed with the electric chair or breathe his last breath gradually with lethal injection, experiencing each and every moment of torment and fear as the flow of the toxic substance implodes the lungs and writhes the organs.

In Florida, Bush suspended executions following the gruesome scheduled execution of Angel Nieves Diaz on 13 December 2006, which took half an hour—more than twice as long as it was supposed to. “It seemed like Angel Nieves Diaz would never die,”wrote Associated Press reporter Ron Word, who has witnessed more than 50 executions in Florida. Angel Nieves Diaz was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami in 1979. The lethal chemicals that were injected into Diaz’s arms, missed his veins and bled into the tissue instead, leaving foot long chemical burns on both arms. Far from being sedated and painlessly brought to his death, Diaz suffered for twenty-four long minutes after the chemicals were injected, grimacing and squirming, blinking his eyes and struggling to breathe. Moreover, everyone has his own free will and intention to do anything, regardless whether it is a subconscious one. On witnessing the ghastly and inhumane capital punishments, who would still commit crimes if given a choice? Even Napoleon, the early 19th century French Emperor quoted "The art of policing is, in order not to punish often, to punish severely".

Furthermore, the death penalty is not a murderous act. It is a form of respect for the society, the victim and for the criminal himself, and responsibility for his actions. If the law does not punish the incorrigible criminal, the society would be chaotic with criminals being given the freedom to do as they please. However, it is not an excuse to execute criminals based on gut feelings and sometimes, bias and vengeance. Morally permissible executions must be judged based on the reasons to justify acting on it, and the motives behind the crimes.

Conversely, the death penalty can be unjustified too. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is ironic for the law to execute the criminal just like the criminal executed his victims. Do humans have the right to stop someone, even an irredeemable criminal, from living? Sometimes, the society has to accept that perhaps rehabilitation should be favoured over death penalty as everyone deserves an opportunity to reflect upon his own actions. However, it is undesirable if the prisoner is seen as a martyr. This might encourage copycat crimes that are apparently detrimental to the society. Nonetheless, miscarriages of justice are irreversible. Perhaps, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one” as quoted by Voltaire, a 17th century French philosopher.

Naturally, people will condemn and retaliate against the criminal at first based on human instincts – thinking that the killers ought to pay for his actions with his own life, for harming us or our loved ones. Though this is not surprising, the society must accept that there is no obligation that lives’ of the guilty have to be taken.

In conclusion, I do not agree that the death penalty is a murder but a deterrent instead. At the very least, the death penalty makes people think twice before their unlawful acts. Ultimately, the decision lies in the public’s opinion on imposing capital punishments, whether the death penalty is either a deterrent or a murder in action.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship. State your reasons why you think it is un/necessary?

According to the Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, censorship is the controlling of access to and dissemination of information, especially on political and moral grounds. It is a characteristic of authoritarian states, which seeks to regulate the flow of information, opinion, and expression.

In my opinion, I believe censorship is necessary. It would allow certain secrets of the different kinds of organizations or individuals to be protected for reasons of security, confidentiality and personal privacy. Imagine the military strategies of Singapore and America have been exhibited, what would happen to the national security of both countries? This is supported by the regulations under the UN International Human Rights Act (1948), Article 19, which states that there must be protection of national security or of public order. Furthermore, with censorship, stir-ups of racial feelings which will lead to chaos would be prevented in comparison to the complete report on the respective cultures’ differing values and beliefs which might lead to racial conflicts.

Nonetheless, probably the most important concern is to be able to uphold positive moral values and prevent negative influences to our society. Dr Steven Martino, who led the US study published in the latest edition of the journal ‘Pediatrics’, said that ‘sexually degrading lyrics’’ – many graphic and filled with obscenities – caused changes in adolescents’ sexual behaviour. However, this study is not substantial to support censorship as it is only conducted in US, not worldwide. Nevertheless, it serves as an indicator on what non-censorship can do to our teenagers. Moreover, over-exposure or repeated exposure to the media can result in desensitization which makes behaviours like hanging out with a sugar daddy, being submissive in sexual relationships, allowing one to be disrespected by the partner, etc, seem normal. Therefore, does this prove that censorship is vital and should be actively encouraged?

However, censorship is unnecessary, on the other hand. In particular, the probability of censorship being implemented is far above the ground when it is used to conceal corruption, crime – hiding the golden truth from the public, robbing of the human rights everyone ought to have, Thus, the wider public interest is not reflected and considered. This is equivalent to showing disrespect and doing injustice to those who had been faithfully following the law and not abusing their freedom of action. It is unfair to contravene everyone’s rights of getting the whole picture. Hence, transparency is being exercised if everything is accounted for.

Furthermore, by having non-censorship in the act, demystification follows. The public would not be ignorant or doubtful on issues concerning them, the country, and the world. In this way, horizon will be broadened, allowing people to comprehend things at much different levels, angles and perspectives. At the same time, this would mean giving youngsters early exposure to contexts they might not have been exposed to under conditions of censorship. This is vital as even if issues that are deemed to be undesirable to be exposed like sex are censored, there is no chance to delete all the sources of input to a child’s curious mind. Youngsters can rent videos from a video store or simply watch grisly clips on YouTube. So why not?

In conclusion, the issue of whether censorship itself should be permitted to exercise its authority in this globalizing, evolutionary society is definitely based on one’s perception. Usually, this would be related to how one is being brought up to determine what is right or wrong. Nevertheless, the factor of in which context is censorship being at play here also played a significant role in the permission for it to be executed. Well, at least for me, censorship is necessary. Sometimes, Man just cannot differentiate between good and evil. In such cases, perhaps it would be better for the censor to sieve out the necessary information for us, the readers.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, April 15, 2007

What have I learnt about the media in the article ''Spilling blood with oil in Iraq'' in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

I have learnt that the media does not have the autonomy to publish the reality, or rather; it has the absolute power to publish everything. It is a matter of choice that they preferred to control the information presented to the public. In this particular illustration, the article on “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, the ‘creative untruths’ that were reported by the US, British and were later published by the media had apparently proven that the media is influenced by the US administration. Hence, the media was ‘obliged’ to present what the US and British assumed it was.

However, that article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq” has demonstrated that the media, in particular, the print industry has its freedom and rights to publish the truth. At the very least, it portrayed how exactly Iraq has been going through since the entrance of the US-British forces into the country. Nonetheless, this specific example is only one fraction of the influential media that showcases what is real. It allows the public, specifically, the readers to be educated, to have a real idea on how the situation in Iraq is really like, how Iraq is the real victim in this whole issue of her being the one that threatens the United States, for instance, using chemical weapons. Actually, it was the US that was the ‘invading forces’ instead of being the ones that were supposedly to assist in the post-war reconstruction.

Nevertheless, in general, the media, now in this alleged “democratic and free society”, which is deemed as enjoying the liberty to publish everything including the golden truth, is in reality, not exercising its privilege to the fullest, in terms of providing the true story. Instead, it makes use of its authority to print whatever they want, even when it comes to changing the reality, hiding the truth and controlling the public’s perception of the matter.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, March 16, 2007

Me!

My name is Sim Kang Kim. When people have difficulties pronouncing my name, they can call me Kim instead. Basically, I am a pure convent girl from CHIJ Our Lady of Nativity (OLN) or CHIJ Ponggol (before we moved), which are my primary schools, and CHIJ St. Joseph’s Convent, which is my secondary school. Now, I am in Anderson’s Junior College after much consideration on which institution I should pursue my education in.

I am usually a shy and quiet girl on the outside but to those who know me thorough, they will find me pleasant and cheerful. Singing has been an ongoing passion since I was in kindergarten. Therefore, I joined Choir when I was in secondary school and was appointed the Vice President.

Being an animal and nature lover, I love to go to places like the Sungei Buloh Nature Reserve, Singapore Zoological Gardens and take many pictures of the magnificent beauty of the sceneries, flora and fauna. However, my favourite animal is the CAT!

Finally, my wish is that everyone would experience true happiness as I have realized that nothing beats more than just by simply being happy. Hope I can be really happy everyday throughout my entire life!
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)