whether you believe

2007-09-09T23:48:00.000-07:00

Research

Globalisation and Culture

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm

Terroism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror.asp

Environment and biodiversity

http://edu.iucnp.org/ei.htm

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

2007-08-21T06:18:00.000-07:00

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

While revolution usually has good reasons to justify it, crimes, in most cases, are not to be pardoned. However, both are grouped together under possible solutions of poverty despite of their contrasting nature. Needless to discuss, poverty is obviously a socially undesirable phenomenon to be seen in any communities. When people are deprived of the essentials for minimum standard of living, they will not just sit there not do anything about it. Hence, revolution and crime may be what they feel is a bridge that links them to a better life. On the other hand, it is too narrow to restrict the causes to poverty only.

The minimum requirements of essentials may be food, safe drinking water and shelter, which are the most fundamental, or social resources like education and healthcare. Since people are important resources of the country, the basic needs of the people have to be met before a country can progress. Thus, when the bare minimum is not even achieved, resentment towards the existing government grows as long as the problem prevails. Revolution might be seen as a solution to end poverty. The Russian revolution of 1917 is one such example. Widespread inflation and food shortages contributed to the revolution. Moreover, the government and nobles enjoyed at the expense of the vast majority’s sufferings. This creates an unbalanced feeling on the part of the people. Here they are suffering yet those people at the top are leading extravagant lifestyles and indifferent to the agony they undergo. If the government were incapable of alleviating their pain, or not even trying, the people would take the things in their own hand. In this aspect, revolution is inevitable.

Revolution requires a considerable amount of support from society for it to be inaugurated while crime is the risk an individual is willing to bear for a change. When the poor are driven to a certain limit in which they feel they have no way out, they are willing to risk everything. They definitely know the consequences of crime but they are just too desperate for a change. A Canadian research has showed that poverty and crime rates are interrelated. The poor are at a higher risk of committing crimes. It is a realistic world out there, nothing is more important than having the basic essentials for survival. At their stage of desperation, crime may be their best and only way out.

On the other hand, there are other reasons, which account for revolution and crimes. There are many types of revolutions, which vary in their purpose and target audience. For example, China’s Cultural Revolution in 1966 was a struggle for power. It did not help in improving the lives of the people, many died in the ensuing purges and industrial production dropped by 12% from 1966-1968. Not all revolutions are due to poverty or result in better standard of living.

People have unlimited wants; they are seldom contented with what they have. When the basic needs are met, they would ask for more. Looking at the positive side, when one is not contented with his present situation, he is motivated to work harder to achieve the targets set. However, he may resort to crimes when greed gets the better of him. In the case of National Kidney Foundation (NKF) scandal, revealed several malpractice by the former NFK board and management. The funds supposedly donated to help the needy, was misused. As such, they have betrayed Singaporean’s trust of the organization. They were paid high salary, which in other words mean they were not in need of this amount of money. Their behaviour may only explain their greediness.

Poverty may not be ideal, but society will not only consists of the rich. The emphasis is not on the comparison of rich and poor but more importantly, to minimize disparity between the two.

2007-08-05T23:13:00.000-07:00

Ageism

Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.

Age discrimination in wages is often enshrined in law. For example, in both the United States and the United Kingdom minimum wage laws allow for employers to pay lower wages to young workers. Many state and local minimum wage laws mirror such an age-based tiered minimum wage. Outside of the law, older workers, on average, make more than younger workers do. Firms may be afraid to offer older workers lower wages than younger workers.
Labor regulations also limit the age at which people are allowed to work and how many hours and under what conditions they may work. In the United States a person must generally be at least 14 years old to seek a job, and workers face additional restrictions on their work activities until age 16. Many companies refuse to hire workers under 18.

Ageism may take the form of “granny bashing” in the popular press (blaming some or all of society’s current economic or other worries on older adults). It is often reflected in advertisements where older adults are depicted as slow, out of date, and lacking knowledge about new technologies, and where youth are shown as quick and knowledgeable. It may also be reflected in the media where older adults as a group are characterized as a drain on society or as alternatively, as a well off group who are unconcerned about the needs of others (in which case, they are labelled “greedy geezers”).

On 1st October 2006, a new law – The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 – comes into force in England, Wales and Scotland (similar legislation is in force in Northern Ireland from 1st October 2006).
The Regulations will provide protection against age discrimination in employment, training and adult education, for people of all ages.
The new law makes it unlawful in most circumstances for an employer to treat you less favourably than a younger colleague, because of your age. This includes in recruitment, promotion, terms and conditions, redundancy and dismissal. But there are some exceptions and situations when an employer may be able to justify discrimination.
There is a new retirement procedure which employers will have to follow. Employees will have the right to request staying on past the employer’s retirement date.
People over age 65 will now be able to claim unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy payments and statutory sick pay as the upper age limits for these are removed.
The law applies to training and education as well as employment. This includes adult learning, further education, higher education such as university courses, and other training which provides skills related to work.
But the new law provides limited protection for people over 65, particularly when it comes to recruitment and forced retirement.

2007-08-05T23:01:00.000-07:00

Lookism
Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance.
Nearly everyone knows the phenomenon that you need to hand in photos for job applications, that good looking people are the center of attention at parties, that people are subconciously rated as too fat, too skinny, too tall, too small, as beautiful or ugly or that one's own body can be perceived as ugly and therefore one feels insecure and unhappy.It is so common that billboards, magazines and TV shows almost only show people who match the dominant beauty image (they are mostly depicted as white and heterosexual) that it hardly attracts attention.This imaginary world which is full of beautiful people and which is depicted by the media clumsily illustrates which values are relevant to gain acceptance in society. Beauty is a market value within the competitive, capitalist society and the positive estimation of beauty coevally leads to the discrimination of others who deviate from this contructed, bodily norm.This form of discrimination, which is prevalent in all areas of life and still hardly regarded, is called lookism.This website is meant to be an information and discussion portal against lookism. Its aim is to motivate people to spot this form of discrimination and to act thereupon.

2007-07-08T09:28:00.000-07:00

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.
which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression in Singapore states:
“Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression” but “Parliament may by law impose… such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore… friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence”

Freedom of speech or Social Responsibility

We observe that there is an increase in emphasis on the freedom of speech and expression in the recent years. When we say “freedom” it means without limit so freedom of speech and expression simply means speech and expression without any form of control.

Singapore is often referred as a little red dot on the world map; a mere sneeze is enough to cause the whole country to catch a cold. As a small multi-racial state where there is cultural and religious pluralism and human resource is our only form of natural resource. Freedom of speech may be often regarded as the most fundamental human right. However, there is a need to strike a balance between the values of this right and the potential harm of it to public interest. Therefore, I believe that Szilagyi’s point of view is more applicable to Singapore.

I remembered someone ever asked me “ Why are the fishes in Singapore so difficult to fish?” and the answer to it was “This is because the fishes in Singapore are like Singaporeans, they will never open their mouths.” Singapore may have been criticized for its policy of restricting freedom of speech and expression and even ranked 147th out of 167 countries on press freedom. Furthermore, the freedom of speech and expression may seem ideal since it means no one will control what we say and we can do, as we like. However, we should also consider the fact that not everyone has the maturity and social responsibility to know what is deemed wrong and not say it. One may not have ill intentions when conveying the message but “once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas.”

Whether the majority or the minority, everyone in Singapore carries different identities, we have different cultures and beliefs. This has lead to a more vibrant cosmopolitan city to live in. At the same time, it also means we have to be more careful about certain sensitive issues since what we think is harmless may not apply to others. Freedom of speech and expression “hails individual freedom” but it is also important to “strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.” which the latter “places more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” Social responsibility and respect especially for the minority creates a more ideal and harmonious country.

Nonetheless, “freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes” as it ensures a healthy democracy. With the freedom of speech and expression, citizens will be able to exercise their right to vote effectively since they have the access to more information and ideas. As stated many times, Singapore is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation, which also means, there is bound to be divergence of opinions on some matters. The freedom to express even controversial points of view is important address key political, social and cultural issues. Therefore, “without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.”

2007-05-29T20:18:00.000-07:00

Research:

Active euthanasia
It occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die.
Passive euthanasia
It occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive.
-switch off life-support machines
-disconnect a feeding tube
-don't carry out a life-extending operation
-don't give life-extending drugs

The moral difference between killing and letting die
Many people make a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
They think that it is acceptable to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but that it is never acceptable to kill a patient by a deliberate act.
Some medical people like this idea. They think it allows them to provide a patient with the death they want without having to deal with the difficult moral problems they would face if they deliberately killed that person.
Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)
There is no real difference
But some people think this distinction is nonsense, since stopping treatment is a deliberate act, and so is deciding not to carry out a particular treatment.
Switching off a respirator requires someone to carry out the action of throwing the switch. If the patient dies as a result of the doctor switching off the respirator then although it's certainly true that the patient dies from lung cancer (or whatever), it's also true that the immediate cause of their death is the switching off of the breathing machine.
in active euthanasia the doctor takes an action with the intention that it will cause the patient's death
in passive euthanasia the doctor lets the patient die
when a doctor lets someone die, they carry out an action with the intention that it will cause the patient's death
so there is no real difference between passive and active euthanasia, since both have the same result: the death of the patient on humanitarian grounds
thus the act of removing life-support is just as much an act of killing as giving a lethal injection

2007-05-14T06:45:00.000-07:00

“The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a murder” Do you agree?

Murder is an intentional unlawful killing. However, I do not see much difference between murder and death penalty except that the latter is “lawfully correct” or “officially accepted”. It is contradicting when on one side, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life” yet on the other hand, lives are taken in the name of justice and law. Since the criminals are not entitled to more right to take the victims life, we too should not be in higher position to do that.

Despite the fact of stating, “all human beings should be equal in dignity and rights” and that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, cruel forms of execution are still performed. What the felon done is not worth respecting, but he is a human being after all. Regardless of whether it is modern or ancient methods of execution, they are still inhuman and degrading punishment. We are taking away his dignity and his right to live. The cruelty of execution was especially shown in the case of Angel Nieves Diaz who was executed by lethal injection in December 2006. Improperly injected needles caused it. He remained alive for 34 minutes, nearly three times as long as the last two executions and a rare step of a second dose had to be given to kill him. The mistake was indeed not done on purpose but enough to show how inhuman execution was.

I agree that every one has to pay a price for what he has done wrong. Is the punishment of “a life for a life” not a price too high to pay? Justice has to be done but I believe it will not help by taking another life. Nothing can be reverted; the victims cannot be brought back to life even if we kill the felon. Some say it helps as a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime, preventing report offences. People will then think twice before they act. I beg to differ. Human rights researcher Mark Warren has estimated that the total figure for those currently condemned to death and awaiting execution is between 19,474 and 24,546 in which the true total is probably higher. With such severe punishment yet the rate of capital crimes remains high. From this, we can see that the argument for death penalty as a deterrent does not stand.

On the other hand, it means justice for the victims’ family and friends. People who have not undergone the pain will not understand how it actually feels like. To be able to accept the fact of losing their closest kin and give the felon a chance to turn over a new leaf is easier to be said than done.

Furthermore, it is an assurance to the public that the felon no longer poses a threat to society. It is also more economically sound to execute the prisoner than keep him in life incarceration. It’s living off taxpayers’ dollars. This is especially unacceptable in the victims’ family and friends’ context. It means paying to support someone who has taken away his or her kin’s life.

On the whole, my stand that the death penalty is not a deterrent but a murder still remains

2007-04-29T00:07:00.000-07:00

Merits and demerits of censorship

The matter on whether censorship is necessary has been a controversial issue since it was first introduced. However, no matter what it is, the first thing we tend to think of when we speak of censorship, is the government. Some may say it is one of government measures to protect the people’s interest while others may argue that its actually executing control over the people.

It is necessary in a way it helps to protect and prevent. In protecting, the target is not government’s interest but the people’s. Here, we say it is specifically aimed at the young and the adolescences that are the future pillars of the country. Any child could be a potential leader of the country. Since we want to reduce their chance to exposure of negative influences as much as possible yet not able to be supervising them all day round, we censor it.
At the same time, by preventing, it means censoring anything that may lead to misunderstanding or conflicts. The power of the media cannot be underestimated especially in small countries like Singapore where everything spreads fast and almost everyone has the same access to information. As a multi racial society, many issues related to race and religions are considered sensitive. Something one finds harmless to joke with may be rather offensive or hurting to another. It is difficult to gauge what is sensitive level for different ethnic groups and religions so strict censorship may be required to maintain peace and order in the country. It is better to be safe than sorry

On the other hand, without censorship, there is more transparency. We have the right to access to the truth. Usually, it is said that whatever that is censored is to protect our interest. However, the viewers do not know how and what is actually censored. Those that should not be censored like the truth may have been censored away too.
Early exposure of things considered causing negative impact to the young might not be a bad thing after all. The more we prevent them to know, the more curious they are. Instead of sheltering them and causing their ignorance, we might as well tell them and then educate them that it is not correct. It allows more learning and broadens horizons.

2007-04-07T06:42:00.000-07:00

TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan’s media industry

The media is our access to the world. We believe everything that comes from the media is true as we assume that it is supposed to and will report the truth. As viewers, we have the right to know the truth yet the medium we put great trust in has disappointed us. Instead of reporting the truth, it has created untruths.

Taiwan’s media industry has always much to do with credibility problems. The TVBS incident is just one example that has been exposed. However, who knows how many of such incidents have happened and how many of which have been covered up? How can we determine the truth and the make-up?
What we see that is so called the ‘truth’ is ugly, but what we did not see from the film that was later on exposed was even uglier.