I think that arts play a very significant role in Singapore. Arts and aesthetics remind peole to be graceful and appreciate the art of beauty. It teaches and educate to be gracious in this selfish society and be conscious at our actions. Art through painting and many other forms brings one back to the past and also allow one to learn more about his or her heritage. Through art, people are able to feel the past and probabbly appreciate the present and predict the future.
However, as said by the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, poeple nowadays see the arts as an indulgence, or for the well-heeled and rich, or if we have time to spare. This is very true in the modern society where the pace of life is painfully fast and does not allow people for much leisure time. Even when one is able to spare a few minutes for relaxing, many a time, people spend their leisure time on their electrical gadgets or on other materialistic products rather then make a trip down to the musuem or wherever that resides artistic values.
Besides, in this modern world where one is driven by profits and money, many artists do related arts job because of the extrinsic rewards they can derive from it rather than the pure interests of it.
Hence, I feel that more should be done to increase the role of the value of arts for people to appreciate its beauty. Art allow one to be more elegant and poised as it brings out the elegance of people. Therefore, arts play a very important role in Singapore as the people are not as graceful and has lots of improvements to be made.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Role of the art and the importance in Singapore
What roles do the Arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?
According to the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts in Singapore, the arts plays three important roles in our society. It is a foundation of our cultural heritage, a source of aesthetic inspiration and intellectual stimulation and lastly, a rich resources for our creative industries.
These roles are of different importance. The role of art being a foundation of our cultural heritage is the most important. Through art work, Singapore can create its own unique identity that as Singaporeans can identify with. An example is the Singapore Season launched in London in 2005. It was also held in Beijing and Shanghai in 2007. Singapore Season aims to showcase Singapore's most creative talents to the rest of the world. Many Singaporeans in these cities who attended the festival also enjoyed themselves. It displayed many Singapore music groups like the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, Singapore Chinese Orchestra and the Singapore Dance Theatre. Singapore pop star JJ Lin was also involved in the show.
Art has also been more recognition in recent years. The setting up of the School of the Art, Singapore (SOTA) represented the level of importance of art in Singapore. The school will help breed a new generation of artists who are well equipped with the knowledge of the various form of art. Singaporeans who are talented and passionate about art will no longer have to travel overseas to study. Singapore has also build the esplanade - theater by the bay which serves as a venue to stage all forms of art. Besides having a large theater to stage world class productions, the also stage works out in the open air which is free for all to watch and enjoy. It hope to bring the art to the people.
Without doubt, economics still play an important role in the promotion of the arts. Without the financial support, it is almost impossible to run the various outreach programme by the National Art Council. Many companies sponsor the plays which in turn help them to advertise. This results in a win-win situation in that more people can enjoy the plays.
In conclusion, art in Singapore plays many roles and that the different roles are important in different areas.
Chee Ying
According to the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts in Singapore, the arts plays three important roles in our society. It is a foundation of our cultural heritage, a source of aesthetic inspiration and intellectual stimulation and lastly, a rich resources for our creative industries.
These roles are of different importance. The role of art being a foundation of our cultural heritage is the most important. Through art work, Singapore can create its own unique identity that as Singaporeans can identify with. An example is the Singapore Season launched in London in 2005. It was also held in Beijing and Shanghai in 2007. Singapore Season aims to showcase Singapore's most creative talents to the rest of the world. Many Singaporeans in these cities who attended the festival also enjoyed themselves. It displayed many Singapore music groups like the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, Singapore Chinese Orchestra and the Singapore Dance Theatre. Singapore pop star JJ Lin was also involved in the show.
Art has also been more recognition in recent years. The setting up of the School of the Art, Singapore (SOTA) represented the level of importance of art in Singapore. The school will help breed a new generation of artists who are well equipped with the knowledge of the various form of art. Singaporeans who are talented and passionate about art will no longer have to travel overseas to study. Singapore has also build the esplanade - theater by the bay which serves as a venue to stage all forms of art. Besides having a large theater to stage world class productions, the also stage works out in the open air which is free for all to watch and enjoy. It hope to bring the art to the people.
Without doubt, economics still play an important role in the promotion of the arts. Without the financial support, it is almost impossible to run the various outreach programme by the National Art Council. Many companies sponsor the plays which in turn help them to advertise. This results in a win-win situation in that more people can enjoy the plays.
In conclusion, art in Singapore plays many roles and that the different roles are important in different areas.
Chee Ying
Friday, August 22, 2008
THE ROLE OF ARTS IN SINGAPORE
What roles do the arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?
The arts not only contribute to the culture of Singapore today. It helps in the contribution in the economy of Singapore today. The arts in Singapore are also an essential role in the society today, where it may benefit the social aspect of Singapore by inserting some form of creativity. In the Singapore society today, the arts play a crucial role, as important as science and technology is to Singapore.
In order to remain at the competitive edge, there will be a need for Singapore to diversify as a society into greater aspects. Our sole focus on the science is definitely insufficient to cope with the higher demands of sustaining as a highly competitive country in the future. Therefore, there will be a need to open up the arts in Singapore in order for the ‘creation of new jobs and greater competitiveness’ to take place. As the arts can also be ‘economically-driven’, the arts will therefore allow growth in the Singapore economy, indirectly playing a crucial role in the development of Singapore in the future.
As the arts is also considered as the ‘bread for society soul’, where different perspectives can be formed. This will allow the mindsets of the people in the society to broaden, where various opinions can be taken into considerations. In this way, the arts will assume the role of broadening perspectives and speed up the growth of Singapore socially. The broadening mindsets of Singaporeans through the appreciation of the arts will definitely be a catalyst in the growth of the country.
The arts are definitely important and crucial to the future developments of Singapore. It will serve as an important factor in determining the extent of growth of Singapore for the years to come.
The arts not only contribute to the culture of Singapore today. It helps in the contribution in the economy of Singapore today. The arts in Singapore are also an essential role in the society today, where it may benefit the social aspect of Singapore by inserting some form of creativity. In the Singapore society today, the arts play a crucial role, as important as science and technology is to Singapore.
In order to remain at the competitive edge, there will be a need for Singapore to diversify as a society into greater aspects. Our sole focus on the science is definitely insufficient to cope with the higher demands of sustaining as a highly competitive country in the future. Therefore, there will be a need to open up the arts in Singapore in order for the ‘creation of new jobs and greater competitiveness’ to take place. As the arts can also be ‘economically-driven’, the arts will therefore allow growth in the Singapore economy, indirectly playing a crucial role in the development of Singapore in the future.
As the arts is also considered as the ‘bread for society soul’, where different perspectives can be formed. This will allow the mindsets of the people in the society to broaden, where various opinions can be taken into considerations. In this way, the arts will assume the role of broadening perspectives and speed up the growth of Singapore socially. The broadening mindsets of Singaporeans through the appreciation of the arts will definitely be a catalyst in the growth of the country.
The arts are definitely important and crucial to the future developments of Singapore. It will serve as an important factor in determining the extent of growth of Singapore for the years to come.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Soul, space and recognition
Paulo argues that talent needs soul, space and recognition in order to flourish. Do you think such conditions are present in Singapore?
According to Paulo, local talent needs the soul, space and recognition in order to flourish. However, not all of the three conditions are present in Singapore.
Singapore lacks the soul in that there is a lack of passion among the Singaporeans workers and students. The way for a newly independent Singapore to survive despite being a small nation lacking in natural resources is to be practical. Thus pragmatism becomes the trademark of the Singapore’s society. This has resulted in a restrictive education system whose aim is to train the students of the past to become efficient workers today. Although there have been many changes to the education system, it has failed to ignite the passion for learning in majority of the students. Students become employees, carrying with them the “just follow instructions’ mindset into the workplace that is being honed during the school days. According to a survey done by the Singapore government on the employers in Singapore, Singaporeans are efficient yet they lack the initiative and decision making skills. This shows that Singaporeans are treating their job as a way to earn a monthly salary instead of something that they would like to do. Therefore, there is a lack of soul that is needed for local talent to thrive.
Singapore also lacks sufficient space for the local talent to flourish. In Singapore, too much is being focus on academic achievements in the area of science and technology. It lacks the room the artistic talent in Singapore to be developed further. Despite the recent introduction of the sports school and the arts school, these schools are still placing equal emphasis on the academic results. At the end of the sports or arts education, the students at the respective schools still need to sit for the academic based exams, the ‘O’ levels and the International Baccalaureate Diploma respectively. The students are also faces parental constrains. Not all the Singaporean parents are also willing to let their child join the specialized schools. Singapore has yet to reach the level of openness where diverse talents are welcomed and groomed.
In conclusion, although the level of recognition in Singapore is quite high, the lack of soul and space will diminish the amount of talent discovered in Singapore.
Chee Ying
According to Paulo, local talent needs the soul, space and recognition in order to flourish. However, not all of the three conditions are present in Singapore.
Singapore lacks the soul in that there is a lack of passion among the Singaporeans workers and students. The way for a newly independent Singapore to survive despite being a small nation lacking in natural resources is to be practical. Thus pragmatism becomes the trademark of the Singapore’s society. This has resulted in a restrictive education system whose aim is to train the students of the past to become efficient workers today. Although there have been many changes to the education system, it has failed to ignite the passion for learning in majority of the students. Students become employees, carrying with them the “just follow instructions’ mindset into the workplace that is being honed during the school days. According to a survey done by the Singapore government on the employers in Singapore, Singaporeans are efficient yet they lack the initiative and decision making skills. This shows that Singaporeans are treating their job as a way to earn a monthly salary instead of something that they would like to do. Therefore, there is a lack of soul that is needed for local talent to thrive.
Singapore also lacks sufficient space for the local talent to flourish. In Singapore, too much is being focus on academic achievements in the area of science and technology. It lacks the room the artistic talent in Singapore to be developed further. Despite the recent introduction of the sports school and the arts school, these schools are still placing equal emphasis on the academic results. At the end of the sports or arts education, the students at the respective schools still need to sit for the academic based exams, the ‘O’ levels and the International Baccalaureate Diploma respectively. The students are also faces parental constrains. Not all the Singaporean parents are also willing to let their child join the specialized schools. Singapore has yet to reach the level of openness where diverse talents are welcomed and groomed.
In conclusion, although the level of recognition in Singapore is quite high, the lack of soul and space will diminish the amount of talent discovered in Singapore.
Chee Ying
1. Supian and Hartung argue that talent in Singapore is too narrowly defined and that we tend to produce only certain types of talent. Do you agree with their views?
With its outstanding education and meritocracy system, Singapore is able to produce a pool of talents whom are able to aid in boosting Singapore’s economy in different working fields. However, I agree that the talent in Singapore is too narrowly defined which may be caused by the stereotypical definition of talents.
First of all, Supian argued that Singaporeans should embrace a culture that rewards risk taking as being the ‘standard’ talents will become too heavy a task and narrows the people’s views on talents. According to Supian, ‘Down here, it’s very hard to fail economically. If you fail, you don’t have a good place to stay and there’s social stigma. In Silicon Valley, if you fail, you just start again. Nobody looks down on you. You just rent a cheap apartment and start again.’ This is true for the case in Singapore, The talents nurtured in Singapore are usually being accessed by their academic results in schools and success in career. There is hardly a chance for you to try something out of the box without having the fear of consequences to face if things were to fail. Talents hence are usually produced in the same manner, bearing the same capabilities, with no change in their area of talent.
In addition, Singapore has failed to produce talents that are able to be manipulative, flexible or creative. According to Hartung, ‘One banker told of mixing graduates of foreign and local universities in the marketing department, to blend foreign-nurtured creativity with the locally-nurtured ability for process management. Another manager related how he often had to push staff to find alternative solutions since they routinely develop just one solution and easily accept rejection.’ Hence it also implies that Singapore’s definition of talents is usually understood on a narrow scope which nurtured talents on the same narrow base. I agree on this point as the current education system in Singapore largely instills thinking in students that talents are people who are able to provide standard solutions to every question. As a result, many students lose their ability to be flexible to situations out of ‘standard solutions’ and have lost the creativity to think up of new solutions to the unexpected problems that arised.
In conclusion, I agree that Singapore’s talents are too narrowly defined and this may hinder Singapore’s future economic growth if Singapore’s talents are confined to such a narrow scope of development.
tianhe![:
Friday, August 15, 2008
Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with his views?
There are certain talents that are gifted while certain are cultivated through time. It is hard to cultivate talent in one if one contains a wrong mindset that all talents are gifted and is impossible to attain talents through hard work. This misconception is a factor for the talent shortage in people in Singapore today. Therefore, I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people.
Firstly, the mindset that Singaporeans are boring and uncreative is vital in hindering the discovery of talents among Singaporeans. This labeling is certainly unfair and shows the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. The misperception definitely cause a restriction in further developing our talents due to the display in lack of belief among Singaporeans on the possibility of being ‘talented’. Most Singaporeans feel that they are ‘having just one talent for the rest of their lives’. This typical mindset is a key factor in the shortage of talent in Singapore today, where there is a lack of belief that talent can be nurtured and not necessarily gifted
The mindset that self content brings stability and happiness is also a reason of the talent shortage. Singaporeans are too satisfied with their own life so much so that they are not interested in discovering their hidden talent. They are often self contented and are not bothered about what they can actually attain. They are just happy with their lives and are uninterested in improving their lives and discovering their talents. The mindset that ‘self content brings happiness’ brings about the talent shortage problem. They lack the desire and passion to excel and are living in self content.
In order to discover our talents, we need to have the courage to take on the first step of exploring before nurturing the talent. The mindset in most Singaporeans is definitely an obstacle in the increasing of talent pool in Singapore today.
There are certain talents that are gifted while certain are cultivated through time. It is hard to cultivate talent in one if one contains a wrong mindset that all talents are gifted and is impossible to attain talents through hard work. This misconception is a factor for the talent shortage in people in Singapore today. Therefore, I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people.
Firstly, the mindset that Singaporeans are boring and uncreative is vital in hindering the discovery of talents among Singaporeans. This labeling is certainly unfair and shows the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. The misperception definitely cause a restriction in further developing our talents due to the display in lack of belief among Singaporeans on the possibility of being ‘talented’. Most Singaporeans feel that they are ‘having just one talent for the rest of their lives’. This typical mindset is a key factor in the shortage of talent in Singapore today, where there is a lack of belief that talent can be nurtured and not necessarily gifted
The mindset that self content brings stability and happiness is also a reason of the talent shortage. Singaporeans are too satisfied with their own life so much so that they are not interested in discovering their hidden talent. They are often self contented and are not bothered about what they can actually attain. They are just happy with their lives and are uninterested in improving their lives and discovering their talents. The mindset that ‘self content brings happiness’ brings about the talent shortage problem. They lack the desire and passion to excel and are living in self content.
In order to discover our talents, we need to have the courage to take on the first step of exploring before nurturing the talent. The mindset in most Singaporeans is definitely an obstacle in the increasing of talent pool in Singapore today.
Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with his views?
There are certain talents that are gifted while certain are cultivated through time. It is hard to cultivate talent in one if one contains a wrong mindset that all talents are gifted and is impossible to attain talents through hard work. This misconception is a factor for the talent shortage in people in Singapore today. Therefore, I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people.
Firstly, the mindset that Singaporeans are boring and uncreative is vital in hindering the discovery of talents among Singaporeans. This labeling is certainly unfair and shows the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. The misperception definitely cause a restriction in further developing our talents due to the display in lack of belief among Singaporeans on the possibility of being ‘talented’. Most Singaporeans feel that they are ‘having just one talent for the rest of their lives’. This typical mindset is a key factor in the shortage of talent in Singapore today, where there is a lack of belief that talent can be nurtured and not necessarily gifted
The mindset that self content brings stability and happiness is also a reason of the talent shortage. Singaporeans are too satisfied with their own life so much so that they are not interested in discovering their hidden talent. They are often self contented and are not bothered about what they can actually attain. They are just happy with their lives and are uninterested in improving their lives and discovering their talents. The mindset that ‘self content brings happiness’ brings about the talent shortage problem. They lack the desire and passion to excel and are living in self content.
In order to discover our talents, we need to have the courage to take on the first step of exploring before nurturing the talent. The mindset in most Singaporeans is definitely an obstacle in the increasing of talent pool in Singapore today.
There are certain talents that are gifted while certain are cultivated through time. It is hard to cultivate talent in one if one contains a wrong mindset that all talents are gifted and is impossible to attain talents through hard work. This misconception is a factor for the talent shortage in people in Singapore today. Therefore, I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people.
Firstly, the mindset that Singaporeans are boring and uncreative is vital in hindering the discovery of talents among Singaporeans. This labeling is certainly unfair and shows the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. The misperception definitely cause a restriction in further developing our talents due to the display in lack of belief among Singaporeans on the possibility of being ‘talented’. Most Singaporeans feel that they are ‘having just one talent for the rest of their lives’. This typical mindset is a key factor in the shortage of talent in Singapore today, where there is a lack of belief that talent can be nurtured and not necessarily gifted
The mindset that self content brings stability and happiness is also a reason of the talent shortage. Singaporeans are too satisfied with their own life so much so that they are not interested in discovering their hidden talent. They are often self contented and are not bothered about what they can actually attain. They are just happy with their lives and are uninterested in improving their lives and discovering their talents. The mindset that ‘self content brings happiness’ brings about the talent shortage problem. They lack the desire and passion to excel and are living in self content.
In order to discover our talents, we need to have the courage to take on the first step of exploring before nurturing the talent. The mindset in most Singaporeans is definitely an obstacle in the increasing of talent pool in Singapore today.
Brain drain in Singapore?
2. Loh explores several suggestions on how to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. Evaluate his suggestions.
An estimated 10,000 Singaporeans leave the country each year to pursue their studies and many eventually face a dilemma as they become torn between returning to their motherland or settling down in a “better” place for them. There is an estimated 150,000 Singaporeans or 3.3% of the entire population working or living abroad. Though 3.3% seems a pretty insignificant value, 150,000 tells you much that Singapore is losing its core talent. People who leave Singapore for other countries are mostly talents who can find better job opportunities elsewhere in the world. With such a phenomena happening, there were some articles that had suggested solutions to this occurrence.
I read an article in ‘Today’ newspaper, a free newspaper that is available at public places such as mrt stations which had mentioned about the losing of local talent in Singapore. One of the suggestions found in the article that I strongly agree with is that to ensure that your people do not give up their citizenship, the government should bring about family togetherness by keeping a family rooted. I too, believe families are very significant and they are probably one of the most important sentimental feelings that one is unable to leave behind for better job prospects. What good is it if you can be rich but not happy? Hence, I feel that a pro-family centered policy would help to keep local talents.
Another suggestion made in the article was that people should be given a say in how things are and if one’s content or discontent is responded in some way. By giving people a say in the management of the country, people will feel more patriotic to their country as they are able to give ideas to improve the country. This makes the person proud of hi stand in the country as he or she feels that they are essential to the country and therefore feel rooted towards Singapore.
By preserving old buildings and heritage areas, it will also help to keep Singaporeans rooted to their country. These places are sentimental for people as it brings them back to the past and demolishing will only make one lose their sense of belongings. If such places were to be replaced by skyscrapers, what more is there for Singaporeans to feel that there is something in Singapore that contains memories of the past which cannot be found elsewhere? Yes, the economy requires constant changes in landscape, but surely something can be done to keep these heritage ares untouched right? With these significant feelings that cannot be bought no matter how rich one is, surely one would feel sentimental towards his motherland and choose to stay at home.
An estimated 10,000 Singaporeans leave the country each year to pursue their studies and many eventually face a dilemma as they become torn between returning to their motherland or settling down in a “better” place for them. There is an estimated 150,000 Singaporeans or 3.3% of the entire population working or living abroad. Though 3.3% seems a pretty insignificant value, 150,000 tells you much that Singapore is losing its core talent. People who leave Singapore for other countries are mostly talents who can find better job opportunities elsewhere in the world. With such a phenomena happening, there were some articles that had suggested solutions to this occurrence.
I read an article in ‘Today’ newspaper, a free newspaper that is available at public places such as mrt stations which had mentioned about the losing of local talent in Singapore. One of the suggestions found in the article that I strongly agree with is that to ensure that your people do not give up their citizenship, the government should bring about family togetherness by keeping a family rooted. I too, believe families are very significant and they are probably one of the most important sentimental feelings that one is unable to leave behind for better job prospects. What good is it if you can be rich but not happy? Hence, I feel that a pro-family centered policy would help to keep local talents.
Another suggestion made in the article was that people should be given a say in how things are and if one’s content or discontent is responded in some way. By giving people a say in the management of the country, people will feel more patriotic to their country as they are able to give ideas to improve the country. This makes the person proud of hi stand in the country as he or she feels that they are essential to the country and therefore feel rooted towards Singapore.
By preserving old buildings and heritage areas, it will also help to keep Singaporeans rooted to their country. These places are sentimental for people as it brings them back to the past and demolishing will only make one lose their sense of belongings. If such places were to be replaced by skyscrapers, what more is there for Singaporeans to feel that there is something in Singapore that contains memories of the past which cannot be found elsewhere? Yes, the economy requires constant changes in landscape, but surely something can be done to keep these heritage ares untouched right? With these significant feelings that cannot be bought no matter how rich one is, surely one would feel sentimental towards his motherland and choose to stay at home.
Monday, August 11, 2008
1. Do you think there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?
Human rights has always been an important issue of discussion and much attention was given to ensure that adequate amount of human rights are given to the different groups of people. However, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed in thought of the general welfare of the society and when minorities were not given enough attention.
First of all, human rights may not be able to protect the rights of minorities or groups of a generally deemed lower social status. Promulgations like the United States Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen existed 200 years earlier. They even proclaimed certain rights as 'universal' - but their definition of universality did not include blacks and women. The declaration of several human rights may seem to protect the welfare of all the population but there are groups who were left out. When faced with problems, the rights are unable to protect them as they were not included due to some prejudice and discrimination. Hence, human rights are curtailed as it failed in some areas to protect the welfare of everyone.
Furthermore, as human rights have to be able to be of the benefit to the society as a whole, the rules of human rights may overlook some specific welfare of the people themselves. Freedom of expression - Article 19 in the Universal Declaration - is most commonly championed by human rights groups in relation to Singapore. But Article 19 is just one of 30 Articles. There is also Article 29 which notes that limits may be placed on individual freedoms 'for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society'. Hence, it can be seen that individual freedom and rights may not be protected by human rights as they cannot tend all of the individual benefits of everyone. There will be times when human rights are curtailed as these rights are also set in the perspective of the general situation in the society and not just individuals.
Hence, in conclusion, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights are curtailed. Human rights are declared by human themselves, hence there will be cases where human rights apply only to the majority and leave out those for the minority and individual needs.
TIANHE[:
Human rights has always been an important issue of discussion and much attention was given to ensure that adequate amount of human rights are given to the different groups of people. However, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed in thought of the general welfare of the society and when minorities were not given enough attention.
First of all, human rights may not be able to protect the rights of minorities or groups of a generally deemed lower social status. Promulgations like the United States Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen existed 200 years earlier. They even proclaimed certain rights as 'universal' - but their definition of universality did not include blacks and women. The declaration of several human rights may seem to protect the welfare of all the population but there are groups who were left out. When faced with problems, the rights are unable to protect them as they were not included due to some prejudice and discrimination. Hence, human rights are curtailed as it failed in some areas to protect the welfare of everyone.
Furthermore, as human rights have to be able to be of the benefit to the society as a whole, the rules of human rights may overlook some specific welfare of the people themselves. Freedom of expression - Article 19 in the Universal Declaration - is most commonly championed by human rights groups in relation to Singapore. But Article 19 is just one of 30 Articles. There is also Article 29 which notes that limits may be placed on individual freedoms 'for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society'. Hence, it can be seen that individual freedom and rights may not be protected by human rights as they cannot tend all of the individual benefits of everyone. There will be times when human rights are curtailed as these rights are also set in the perspective of the general situation in the society and not just individuals.
Hence, in conclusion, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights are curtailed. Human rights are declared by human themselves, hence there will be cases where human rights apply only to the majority and leave out those for the minority and individual needs.
TIANHE[:
Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?
In the modern society, government has learnt to implement several policies to try to motivate the population to work hard in order to improve the economy. This is no different in Singapore which has its own share of policies and regulations set to motivate the people. This will inculcate extrinsic motivation in the people which will result in negative impacts if this form of motivation becomes the main source of motivation for the people.
First of all, extrinsic motivation will mould a society of people who only work for short term benefits. Extrinsic motivation will make the people work hard only to reach materialistic goals and incentives which appear to be beneficial to them at that moment. As the text quotes, Intrinsic motivation, by contrast, drives people to perform an activity for which they receive no reward except the activity itself. Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile. As a result, the people may be over driven by extrinsic motivation, which applies to the current situation in Singapore. IN Singapore, several childcare policies and education policies are set in such a way that the people fulfill the ‘criteria’ just to reap the benefits from the policies itself. This will produce a new batch of population where work has to be balanced with equal incentives and not for the joy of accomplishing it.
To add on, I agree with Yiqi’s point that is that there will be no breakthrough in the society, where people only work for the sake of self benefits and do not wish to excel in the jobs they do when no benefits are given. For Singapore, there are several systems such as the L.E.A.P.S system in secondary schools where students score points by fulfilling its criteria such as serving community service. Most students serve these hours not out of the heart to serve the community, but rather to earn points so as to allow easier entry to junior colleges. As a result, more students will be driven by its extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic as it is easier to aim at self benefits. Hence, the society will be unable to progress without a balance of feeding incentives to the people.
IN conclusion, I feel that Singapore is more dominated by extrinsic motivation which will have serious negative impacts when the people get over driven by short term incentives and confine themselves to be calculative. Creativity will not be needed as the people will only be interested in doing things that are beneficial to themselves.
In the modern society, government has learnt to implement several policies to try to motivate the population to work hard in order to improve the economy. This is no different in Singapore which has its own share of policies and regulations set to motivate the people. This will inculcate extrinsic motivation in the people which will result in negative impacts if this form of motivation becomes the main source of motivation for the people.
First of all, extrinsic motivation will mould a society of people who only work for short term benefits. Extrinsic motivation will make the people work hard only to reach materialistic goals and incentives which appear to be beneficial to them at that moment. As the text quotes, Intrinsic motivation, by contrast, drives people to perform an activity for which they receive no reward except the activity itself. Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile. As a result, the people may be over driven by extrinsic motivation, which applies to the current situation in Singapore. IN Singapore, several childcare policies and education policies are set in such a way that the people fulfill the ‘criteria’ just to reap the benefits from the policies itself. This will produce a new batch of population where work has to be balanced with equal incentives and not for the joy of accomplishing it.
To add on, I agree with Yiqi’s point that is that there will be no breakthrough in the society, where people only work for the sake of self benefits and do not wish to excel in the jobs they do when no benefits are given. For Singapore, there are several systems such as the L.E.A.P.S system in secondary schools where students score points by fulfilling its criteria such as serving community service. Most students serve these hours not out of the heart to serve the community, but rather to earn points so as to allow easier entry to junior colleges. As a result, more students will be driven by its extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic as it is easier to aim at self benefits. Hence, the society will be unable to progress without a balance of feeding incentives to the people.
IN conclusion, I feel that Singapore is more dominated by extrinsic motivation which will have serious negative impacts when the people get over driven by short term incentives and confine themselves to be calculative. Creativity will not be needed as the people will only be interested in doing things that are beneficial to themselves.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
I feel that the type of motivation predominantly used in Singapore is extrinsic. Just by looking at the educational system in Singapore, one is immediately able to tell that how much emphasis is put on grades and results of studies. Majority of the students do not do well in their studies to learn new things or broaden their general knowledge but rather, they study and do well just for the sake of getting good grades to move on to a higher level and attain high-level certificates to be rewarded by parents or teachers or to get a good job. The intrinsic motivation for studying is to broaden one's perspectives, develop an interest in what you are doing and enjoy it. Yet, students nowadays study only to receive extrinsic awards or because they are forced to.
Even in the workplace, extrinsic motivation is prevalent. This can be clearly seen from why most people even go to work. Adults work to earn money because they have to provide for themselves and their families. How many actually go to work because of the pleasure of enjoying what they do? Well, there are, but very few. People are very often pushed to do things because of the extrinsic rewards. People thus lose their very purpose of why they are even what they are doing in the first place. However, many a time people are highly motivated by extrinsic and intrinsic rewards depending on the nature of their purpose.
By continuing with extrinsic motivation, Singapore can continue to prosper in terms of its economy as well as its capability of producing elite students. Such a mode of motivation can sometimes actually bring out the best in people when these people are blinded by the extrinsic rewards, thus they aim to do well. However, it may also be both intrinsic and extrinsic for some people. Such people love what they do and are intrinsically motivated but they feel happier when they can also be rewarded extrinsically but nonetheless do not feel sore when there are no such rewards. Hence, I feel that using extrinsic motivation should be slowly lowered as too much use of it will make people lose their roots of their purpose in what they do but yet a certain amount might be sufficient to push people to work and make the society a better place to live in.
In response to ECY's view, I agree with her that too much of extrinsic motivation will make this society uncaring and materialistic and result in a divided Singapore, therefore I feel that Singapore should start to not be motivated by extrinsic rewards but rather based on intrinsic rewards which will make this society more humane to live in.
Even in the workplace, extrinsic motivation is prevalent. This can be clearly seen from why most people even go to work. Adults work to earn money because they have to provide for themselves and their families. How many actually go to work because of the pleasure of enjoying what they do? Well, there are, but very few. People are very often pushed to do things because of the extrinsic rewards. People thus lose their very purpose of why they are even what they are doing in the first place. However, many a time people are highly motivated by extrinsic and intrinsic rewards depending on the nature of their purpose.
By continuing with extrinsic motivation, Singapore can continue to prosper in terms of its economy as well as its capability of producing elite students. Such a mode of motivation can sometimes actually bring out the best in people when these people are blinded by the extrinsic rewards, thus they aim to do well. However, it may also be both intrinsic and extrinsic for some people. Such people love what they do and are intrinsically motivated but they feel happier when they can also be rewarded extrinsically but nonetheless do not feel sore when there are no such rewards. Hence, I feel that using extrinsic motivation should be slowly lowered as too much use of it will make people lose their roots of their purpose in what they do but yet a certain amount might be sufficient to push people to work and make the society a better place to live in.
In response to ECY's view, I agree with her that too much of extrinsic motivation will make this society uncaring and materialistic and result in a divided Singapore, therefore I feel that Singapore should start to not be motivated by extrinsic rewards but rather based on intrinsic rewards which will make this society more humane to live in.
Is the past and present important?
Do the past and present offer any guidance for the future?
In my opinion, I feel that the past and present will uncover the future. One of the reasons why people learn history is to learn whether the actions taken in the past should be prevented or extended. We learn so as to not make the same mistakes and to improvise on it if needed. Through the past, people learn to correct the mistakes and prevent it from occurring again. Take for example the case of the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, racial riots occurred due to the misunderstandings between races. The lack of respect for one another was one of the reasons why racial discrimination was prevalent in the past. Thus, to ensure that such a problem would not happen in Singapore again, the government was very careful when dealing with such sensitive issues.
In a society like Singapore, reciprocity and mutual respect are cardinal values for any productive debate on policy issues. The government has learnt that through the years, thus it is absolutely right to say that the past offer us guidance on how the future should be like. Likewise, the present offers an insight of present policies and the what-should and what-should-not been done actions which will provide some ideas into the future. As the society change with time, it undergoes metamorphosis and rules, policies have to change with it. In the case of Singapore, where the Court banned gay sex in the past and no one was willingly to come forward to speak, the Court may be starting to change it's rule with the increasing acceptance of gay sex by people. This shows how the government must change its rules and regulation as the society changes its mindset. The past thus gave us guidance on how such issues should be handled with care as riots can break out if handled inappropriately.
Therefore, in my opinion, the past and present is very important to the future. It is essential as it provides humans an outlook of the wrongs and rights of the past decades and whether humans are still doing the right things presently. It is only when we can look at past and present actions, can we then decide what and how the future should hold for us.
In my opinion, I feel that the past and present will uncover the future. One of the reasons why people learn history is to learn whether the actions taken in the past should be prevented or extended. We learn so as to not make the same mistakes and to improvise on it if needed. Through the past, people learn to correct the mistakes and prevent it from occurring again. Take for example the case of the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, racial riots occurred due to the misunderstandings between races. The lack of respect for one another was one of the reasons why racial discrimination was prevalent in the past. Thus, to ensure that such a problem would not happen in Singapore again, the government was very careful when dealing with such sensitive issues.
In a society like Singapore, reciprocity and mutual respect are cardinal values for any productive debate on policy issues. The government has learnt that through the years, thus it is absolutely right to say that the past offer us guidance on how the future should be like. Likewise, the present offers an insight of present policies and the what-should and what-should-not been done actions which will provide some ideas into the future. As the society change with time, it undergoes metamorphosis and rules, policies have to change with it. In the case of Singapore, where the Court banned gay sex in the past and no one was willingly to come forward to speak, the Court may be starting to change it's rule with the increasing acceptance of gay sex by people. This shows how the government must change its rules and regulation as the society changes its mindset. The past thus gave us guidance on how such issues should be handled with care as riots can break out if handled inappropriately.
Therefore, in my opinion, the past and present is very important to the future. It is essential as it provides humans an outlook of the wrongs and rights of the past decades and whether humans are still doing the right things presently. It is only when we can look at past and present actions, can we then decide what and how the future should hold for us.
Affirmative action in Singapore?
In my opinion, there is no case for affirmative action in Singapore to take against discrimination for quotas to enter local universities.
The Singapore government has always been fair to all races and provide equal opportunities for people of all races regardless of gender to receive education. As much as there have been cases where racial discrimination has occurred, it has always been resolved peacefully. Singapore's only resources are the people and we cannot afford chaos to break out and ruin our country and economy, hence the government is very careful to ensure peace and thus impose severe punishment to those who disrupt our peace.
The Supreme Court in America ruled that universities could not use quotas to ensure a minimum number of places for minority applicants but that they could take race into account when making admissions decisions which was in contradict with what the University of Michigan case where they had reserved a certain percentage of places for minority applicants. Having such a rule in the first place by the Court to allow universities to take race into account is a mistake in my opinion. When the Court has such a rule, racial discrimination occurs because discrimination against race can happen legally and openly.
However, the government in Singapore knows the severity of such a problem if they allow such a rule of taking race into consideration when admitting applicants into universities. Hence, the government is cautious not to overstep the fine line between equality and discrimination which is why everything in Singapore is based on meritocracy. One climbs up the ladder based on his or her merits where societal status, gender or race is not taken into consideration. Therefore, I believe strongly that there is no affirmative action that has to be taken in Singapore against discrimination of the criteria entering universities based on one's race.
The Singapore government has always been fair to all races and provide equal opportunities for people of all races regardless of gender to receive education. As much as there have been cases where racial discrimination has occurred, it has always been resolved peacefully. Singapore's only resources are the people and we cannot afford chaos to break out and ruin our country and economy, hence the government is very careful to ensure peace and thus impose severe punishment to those who disrupt our peace.
The Supreme Court in America ruled that universities could not use quotas to ensure a minimum number of places for minority applicants but that they could take race into account when making admissions decisions which was in contradict with what the University of Michigan case where they had reserved a certain percentage of places for minority applicants. Having such a rule in the first place by the Court to allow universities to take race into account is a mistake in my opinion. When the Court has such a rule, racial discrimination occurs because discrimination against race can happen legally and openly.
However, the government in Singapore knows the severity of such a problem if they allow such a rule of taking race into consideration when admitting applicants into universities. Hence, the government is cautious not to overstep the fine line between equality and discrimination which is why everything in Singapore is based on meritocracy. One climbs up the ladder based on his or her merits where societal status, gender or race is not taken into consideration. Therefore, I believe strongly that there is no affirmative action that has to be taken in Singapore against discrimination of the criteria entering universities based on one's race.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Discrimination in Singapore
Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?
Singaporean has always pride itself on being fair to all and that meritocracy is practiced in all fields. However, Singaporeans still discriminates.
A common stereotype in Singapore is the stereotyping of older people in the society. Older people are often thought to be slower and are less willing to learn new things and so are less economically productive. Many companies in Singapore discriminate against older people who work in their companies. When they reach an age of 62, the official retirement age, the companies will negotiate a new pay and benefit package with them. More often than not, their workload remains the same while they take a pay cut of up to 20 percent. Besides that, they also start to work on a contract-based and not as a permanent staff. Therefore, their benefits are also reduced drastically. However, not all older people are slow and unwilling to learn new things. An example is the older workers at old chang kee. According to the boss of old chang kee, he hired older people as they are as willing to learn as the younger staff. They are also less likely to switch jobs unlike the younger staff.
Ms Wang recounted an incident where a male doctor expected her to cry when she was given some bad news just because she is a woman. The stereotypes of women still exist in Singapore today. Likewise, a woman is also stereotype to be less committed to work if they have children. This resulted in women being asked by their prospective employer about their plans to marry if they are single and to have children if they are married. Although many companies claim they do not discriminate against women, why than do they ask these type of questions in the first place. Women who are pregnant are also faced with the risk of being sacked.
In conclusion, discrimination arising from stereotypes still exists in Singapore.
chee Ying
Singaporean has always pride itself on being fair to all and that meritocracy is practiced in all fields. However, Singaporeans still discriminates.
A common stereotype in Singapore is the stereotyping of older people in the society. Older people are often thought to be slower and are less willing to learn new things and so are less economically productive. Many companies in Singapore discriminate against older people who work in their companies. When they reach an age of 62, the official retirement age, the companies will negotiate a new pay and benefit package with them. More often than not, their workload remains the same while they take a pay cut of up to 20 percent. Besides that, they also start to work on a contract-based and not as a permanent staff. Therefore, their benefits are also reduced drastically. However, not all older people are slow and unwilling to learn new things. An example is the older workers at old chang kee. According to the boss of old chang kee, he hired older people as they are as willing to learn as the younger staff. They are also less likely to switch jobs unlike the younger staff.
Ms Wang recounted an incident where a male doctor expected her to cry when she was given some bad news just because she is a woman. The stereotypes of women still exist in Singapore today. Likewise, a woman is also stereotype to be less committed to work if they have children. This resulted in women being asked by their prospective employer about their plans to marry if they are single and to have children if they are married. Although many companies claim they do not discriminate against women, why than do they ask these type of questions in the first place. Women who are pregnant are also faced with the risk of being sacked.
In conclusion, discrimination arising from stereotypes still exists in Singapore.
chee Ying
‘The world of the future will be a women’s world’
In the past few decades, the social status of women have been given more and more recognition. More women are deemed capable to be given high ranking posts even in male dominating fields. However, the sex discrimination against women is still present in the society today. Hence I think that it will take a lot of effort for the world of the future to be a women’s world.
Women are still unable to gain respect from the world as the stereotypes of women still exist. Article 3 shows that there is the stereotype which suggest women are incapable of performing as well as the males in the male-dominating working fields. [article 3 para 13 and 14], ‘one of the biggest gaps is in the male dominated finance and insurance industry where a man can expect to earn 38% more than a woman,’ and ‘Despite years of sex discrimination legislation and education, workplaces are still driven by a mindset that devalues the contribution of women.’ This shows that women are still being stereotyped as not being as capable as males, which will hinder the rise in social status of women. Although, recognition is give to women for being educated and more females are getting employed, it is not hard to notice that the gap in salary between male and females for the same posts are still existing. For the world of the future to be a women’s world, women have to work much harder to prove this stereotype wrong.
In addition, women will find dominating the world of the future very difficult as the current society has little faith in women to hold high political roles or roles of importance in firms. Cooperate Women’s Directors International, a U.S. nonprofit organization, last year noted that only two women sit in the boards of 27Japanese companies listed on Fortune’s Global 200list. This reflects the truth in many Asian countries as well. Women are not being recognized to be equipped with the ability to handle high ranking positions. As a result, the world of the future is unlikely to be a women’s world with the current situation being such an advantage for the women.
In conclusion, I do not think the world of the future will be a woman’s world as there are too many restrictions and barriers that women have to work hard to overcome just to be of equal status as that of males. Hence, women dominating the world of the future is unlikely to happen.
TIANHE
In the past few decades, the social status of women have been given more and more recognition. More women are deemed capable to be given high ranking posts even in male dominating fields. However, the sex discrimination against women is still present in the society today. Hence I think that it will take a lot of effort for the world of the future to be a women’s world.
Women are still unable to gain respect from the world as the stereotypes of women still exist. Article 3 shows that there is the stereotype which suggest women are incapable of performing as well as the males in the male-dominating working fields. [article 3 para 13 and 14], ‘one of the biggest gaps is in the male dominated finance and insurance industry where a man can expect to earn 38% more than a woman,’ and ‘Despite years of sex discrimination legislation and education, workplaces are still driven by a mindset that devalues the contribution of women.’ This shows that women are still being stereotyped as not being as capable as males, which will hinder the rise in social status of women. Although, recognition is give to women for being educated and more females are getting employed, it is not hard to notice that the gap in salary between male and females for the same posts are still existing. For the world of the future to be a women’s world, women have to work much harder to prove this stereotype wrong.
In addition, women will find dominating the world of the future very difficult as the current society has little faith in women to hold high political roles or roles of importance in firms. Cooperate Women’s Directors International, a U.S. nonprofit organization, last year noted that only two women sit in the boards of 27Japanese companies listed on Fortune’s Global 200list. This reflects the truth in many Asian countries as well. Women are not being recognized to be equipped with the ability to handle high ranking positions. As a result, the world of the future is unlikely to be a women’s world with the current situation being such an advantage for the women.
In conclusion, I do not think the world of the future will be a woman’s world as there are too many restrictions and barriers that women have to work hard to overcome just to be of equal status as that of males. Hence, women dominating the world of the future is unlikely to happen.
TIANHE
‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?
As the world continues to modernise today, many traditional beliefs and conservative mindsets are undergoing revolution at the same time. Phrases such as ‘A women’s place is in the home’, is nonetheless an old catchphrase that can never be applied in the reality today. Women today are enjoying equality with men and are enjoying equal rights as men. Therefore, it is impossible to agree that ‘women will never enjoy the same rights as men’.
Women living in today’s society are given equal opportunities regardless of gender. They are allowed to enter the working fields that were regarded as being male-orientated such as engineering and politics. They no longer receive discrimination by the men in these fields as they have convinced them with their capability. The increasing number of women in male-dominated field shows that women are gradually enjoying the same rights as men.
Women definitely enjoy the same rights as men today as gender discrimination is diminishing with the aid of development, where both genders are given equal education opportunities. Capability and academic results are the requirements for the entrance of universities and gender are no longer a barrier for women. Women are no longer deprived from education and are not constrained to staying at home, coping with household chores. They too, enjoy the rights of schooling and receiving education. Therefore, I do not agree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men as they are already benefiting equal rights as men today.
Due to the opening up of conservative mindsets, women today have stepped up and proved themselves to be equally competent as men and are able to be on par with them. It is obvious that there is gender equality today and both genders enjoy the same rights. Therefore I do not agree that ‘women will never enjoy the same rights as men’.
As the world continues to modernise today, many traditional beliefs and conservative mindsets are undergoing revolution at the same time. Phrases such as ‘A women’s place is in the home’, is nonetheless an old catchphrase that can never be applied in the reality today. Women today are enjoying equality with men and are enjoying equal rights as men. Therefore, it is impossible to agree that ‘women will never enjoy the same rights as men’.
Women living in today’s society are given equal opportunities regardless of gender. They are allowed to enter the working fields that were regarded as being male-orientated such as engineering and politics. They no longer receive discrimination by the men in these fields as they have convinced them with their capability. The increasing number of women in male-dominated field shows that women are gradually enjoying the same rights as men.
Women definitely enjoy the same rights as men today as gender discrimination is diminishing with the aid of development, where both genders are given equal education opportunities. Capability and academic results are the requirements for the entrance of universities and gender are no longer a barrier for women. Women are no longer deprived from education and are not constrained to staying at home, coping with household chores. They too, enjoy the rights of schooling and receiving education. Therefore, I do not agree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men as they are already benefiting equal rights as men today.
Due to the opening up of conservative mindsets, women today have stepped up and proved themselves to be equally competent as men and are able to be on par with them. It is obvious that there is gender equality today and both genders enjoy the same rights. Therefore I do not agree that ‘women will never enjoy the same rights as men’.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation
Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation
I feel that extrinsic motivation is predominately used in Singapore. In the education, politics and social field, extrinsic motivation is commonly used. this lead to both positive and negative impact the Singapore society. The positive impact include being able to control the people and their behaviour while the negative impact include turning Singapore into a materialistic and uncaring society.
In the article, Lydia Lim said that it has become acceptable to pay children to study and couples to have children. I agree that in today society, many things are ruled by extrinsic motivation. In the education system, children are encouraged to do well academically by monetary incentives. primary and secondary school going children are offered edusave bursary and scholarship award. Another type of incentive is the scholarships that are being offered to students with excellent results. Another example is the many fines Singapore is well known for. Many things in Singapore are ruled by law with punishment being melted out if a person makes an offense. This allow the government to ensure that social order is observed. By fining people, bad habits like littering can be eradicated. This helps to contribute to a cleaner Singapore.
However, by predominately using extrinsic motivation, Singapore will become an uncaring and materialistic society. In a society where money talks, who will care for the poor, the old and the sick? This will result in a widening income gap and a divided Singapore. Without a cohesive Singapore, social order will be broken down. Luckily, there are still people motivated by intrinsic motivation. this can be seen by the large amount of total donations made by Singaporeans in the past year despite the many scandals surrounding large charity organisations. There are also many volunteers in Singapore who willingly help others without any thought of rewards.
In conclusion, there need to be a balance in the usage of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic motivation is encouraged, the usage of extrinsic motivation can be justified. instead of purely relying on individual goodwill, we may need to provide incentives or disincentive to achieve social aims.
in response to Yi Qi, i agree that extrinsic motivation is used for short term goals. However, i do not think that it is easy to activate another individual intrinsic motivation. it will take a long time and the results are not guarantied.
Chee Ying
I feel that extrinsic motivation is predominately used in Singapore. In the education, politics and social field, extrinsic motivation is commonly used. this lead to both positive and negative impact the Singapore society. The positive impact include being able to control the people and their behaviour while the negative impact include turning Singapore into a materialistic and uncaring society.
In the article, Lydia Lim said that it has become acceptable to pay children to study and couples to have children. I agree that in today society, many things are ruled by extrinsic motivation. In the education system, children are encouraged to do well academically by monetary incentives. primary and secondary school going children are offered edusave bursary and scholarship award. Another type of incentive is the scholarships that are being offered to students with excellent results. Another example is the many fines Singapore is well known for. Many things in Singapore are ruled by law with punishment being melted out if a person makes an offense. This allow the government to ensure that social order is observed. By fining people, bad habits like littering can be eradicated. This helps to contribute to a cleaner Singapore.
However, by predominately using extrinsic motivation, Singapore will become an uncaring and materialistic society. In a society where money talks, who will care for the poor, the old and the sick? This will result in a widening income gap and a divided Singapore. Without a cohesive Singapore, social order will be broken down. Luckily, there are still people motivated by intrinsic motivation. this can be seen by the large amount of total donations made by Singaporeans in the past year despite the many scandals surrounding large charity organisations. There are also many volunteers in Singapore who willingly help others without any thought of rewards.
In conclusion, there need to be a balance in the usage of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic motivation is encouraged, the usage of extrinsic motivation can be justified. instead of purely relying on individual goodwill, we may need to provide incentives or disincentive to achieve social aims.
in response to Yi Qi, i agree that extrinsic motivation is used for short term goals. However, i do not think that it is easy to activate another individual intrinsic motivation. it will take a long time and the results are not guarantied.
Chee Ying
LONG TERM INCENTIVES?
There are both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations found in Singapore. The more predominantly form of motivation used in Singapore would be extrinsic motivation. Singapore often applies extrinsic methods to the people.
With the continuation of the usage of extrinsic motivations, Singaporeans will become more materialistic ‘calculative, disciplined and professional’, where they become ‘emotion-less’, with self-benefits placing above everything else. The society will become a more competitive place where there are no sense of humanity and compassion. In this case, the economy will face difficulty in advancing as there will be little help to aid the lower income groups in the country. In this case, it is impossible for the country to prosper as one.
One more point is that there will be no breakthrough in the society, where people only work for the sake of self benefits and do not wish to excel in the jobs they do when no benefits are given. This will lead to people being contented with the benefits they enjoy and do not breakthrough in the work they do to seek greater accomplishment. Therefore, the society will also be affected due to the complacency of the people with the present benefits they enjoy instead of looking at the long-run benefits that may occur. ‘Monetary rewards undermine people's sense of social obligation and altruism’, in the Community Involvement Programme (C.I.P) context, where many students just do for the sake of the merit points awarded. They often neglect the actual meaning of the work and refuse to go further in their jobs. This will lead to many long run social problems as many people will involve in CIP without really going deeper in helping the people in need.
In conclusion, the extrinsic motivations are only a short term incentives to problems. In order to solve the problems present in the long run, intrinsic motivations need to be activated, where the heart and the soul are placed in to doing something instead of just the body being motivated extrinsically.
With the continuation of the usage of extrinsic motivations, Singaporeans will become more materialistic ‘calculative, disciplined and professional’, where they become ‘emotion-less’, with self-benefits placing above everything else. The society will become a more competitive place where there are no sense of humanity and compassion. In this case, the economy will face difficulty in advancing as there will be little help to aid the lower income groups in the country. In this case, it is impossible for the country to prosper as one.
One more point is that there will be no breakthrough in the society, where people only work for the sake of self benefits and do not wish to excel in the jobs they do when no benefits are given. This will lead to people being contented with the benefits they enjoy and do not breakthrough in the work they do to seek greater accomplishment. Therefore, the society will also be affected due to the complacency of the people with the present benefits they enjoy instead of looking at the long-run benefits that may occur. ‘Monetary rewards undermine people's sense of social obligation and altruism’, in the Community Involvement Programme (C.I.P) context, where many students just do for the sake of the merit points awarded. They often neglect the actual meaning of the work and refuse to go further in their jobs. This will lead to many long run social problems as many people will involve in CIP without really going deeper in helping the people in need.
In conclusion, the extrinsic motivations are only a short term incentives to problems. In order to solve the problems present in the long run, intrinsic motivations need to be activated, where the heart and the soul are placed in to doing something instead of just the body being motivated extrinsically.
Monday, July 28, 2008
DO WE NEED RELIGION?
1. Discuss the importance of religion in society today. (2004)
In the knowledge and innovation based society today, religion seemed to be regarded as unimportant by people. However, as the world continues to progress and modernize, I believe that the importance and role of religion will be irreplaceable. Religion serves as many different purposes to different people and will definitely become a source of pillar for the spiritual health of people today.
In the competitive world today, people are too bothered by the results and work so much so that they lose themselves psychologically, while some may even suffer from depression. At these points of time, they will feel empty without spiritual support and will slowly lose their mental strength and willpower. Therefore, religion will help in making everyone in the society more contented and spiritual as ‘individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought’, and perhaps with religion, people will be stronger to face with setbacks and the world will definitely be a better and happier place.
Religions bring about differences and differences lead to understanding and tolerance. Although many may argue that differences bring about arising conflicts, I beg to differ. Only with religions, our society will have a richer culture. With appropriate understanding and basic tolerance, conflicts would be paranoia. In this case, with religion, our society will definitely be more cosmopolitan. It will also increase understanding between the different people and increase our sensitivity which is much needed in today’s society.
Therefore, religion will help us cope better in today’s society by improving our spiritual well-being and sensitivity.
In the knowledge and innovation based society today, religion seemed to be regarded as unimportant by people. However, as the world continues to progress and modernize, I believe that the importance and role of religion will be irreplaceable. Religion serves as many different purposes to different people and will definitely become a source of pillar for the spiritual health of people today.
In the competitive world today, people are too bothered by the results and work so much so that they lose themselves psychologically, while some may even suffer from depression. At these points of time, they will feel empty without spiritual support and will slowly lose their mental strength and willpower. Therefore, religion will help in making everyone in the society more contented and spiritual as ‘individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought’, and perhaps with religion, people will be stronger to face with setbacks and the world will definitely be a better and happier place.
Religions bring about differences and differences lead to understanding and tolerance. Although many may argue that differences bring about arising conflicts, I beg to differ. Only with religions, our society will have a richer culture. With appropriate understanding and basic tolerance, conflicts would be paranoia. In this case, with religion, our society will definitely be more cosmopolitan. It will also increase understanding between the different people and increase our sensitivity which is much needed in today’s society.
Therefore, religion will help us cope better in today’s society by improving our spiritual well-being and sensitivity.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
What's the role of religion in Singapore's public sphere?
Religion needs to play a supporting role in the public sphere in Singapore. It serves as a moral guide for citizens, defining the boundaries of what is generally accepted by the majority of Singaporeans. It also helps to provide varying views on an issue. After public discussion, a consensus can be reached. I agree with Chua’s argument that for religion to be involved in public policy, it must appeal to secular argument.
According to Chua’s article, she agree with moral philosopher john Rawels that personal religion may influences the individual view on an issue but when arguing in the political arena, the individual need to present arguments that are acceptable and understandable to people of different faiths. To use religion as an argument will not benefit the society as a whole. Instead, it may result in a fragmented society divided along religious lines. Only by putting the individual’s religion point of view across with logical reasoning can it be beneficial to the society. An example is the debate over the setting up of casinos in Singapore. Many religious leaders have step up to voice out their disagreement over the issue. However, the reasons they give are valid social concerns instead of my religion probates it. They speak up not only in the capacity of religious leaders but also as citizens of Singapore. Therefore, although religion plays a part in policy making, they need to be reasonable and logical for the general public to understand and accept it.
In Devan’s article, she also points out correctly that “to deny religion a formal role in either politics or public policy does not mean – can never mean – denying the religious of whatever faith a role as citizens.” Although Singapore stays neutral on the questions of faith, the individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought and his stand on various issues concerning Singapore policy. Singapore has also set up the council for the minority rights to check that policies do not put any citizen regardless of race or religion at a disadvantage. To maintain the peace in Singapore, religion should only play a supporting role in Singapore’s politics and policy making.
Chee ying
According to Chua’s article, she agree with moral philosopher john Rawels that personal religion may influences the individual view on an issue but when arguing in the political arena, the individual need to present arguments that are acceptable and understandable to people of different faiths. To use religion as an argument will not benefit the society as a whole. Instead, it may result in a fragmented society divided along religious lines. Only by putting the individual’s religion point of view across with logical reasoning can it be beneficial to the society. An example is the debate over the setting up of casinos in Singapore. Many religious leaders have step up to voice out their disagreement over the issue. However, the reasons they give are valid social concerns instead of my religion probates it. They speak up not only in the capacity of religious leaders but also as citizens of Singapore. Therefore, although religion plays a part in policy making, they need to be reasonable and logical for the general public to understand and accept it.
In Devan’s article, she also points out correctly that “to deny religion a formal role in either politics or public policy does not mean – can never mean – denying the religious of whatever faith a role as citizens.” Although Singapore stays neutral on the questions of faith, the individual’s beliefs will influence his way of thought and his stand on various issues concerning Singapore policy. Singapore has also set up the council for the minority rights to check that policies do not put any citizen regardless of race or religion at a disadvantage. To maintain the peace in Singapore, religion should only play a supporting role in Singapore’s politics and policy making.
Chee ying
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Are Human Rights Universal?
Human Rights have been formally defined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It consists of 30 different articles which covers different aspects of human rights. However, the universal declaration on human rights serves only as a guide for countries to achieve. Some of the articles are in conflict with the accepted norm in different societies and therefore, while some of the articles in the universal declaration of human rights are universal, some are not.
Human rights which are universal includes article 1 and 3. Article 1 state that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” while article 3 states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This is universally true. Every child who is born should be treated equally and fairly. However, this is not being practiced by all the countries in the world. In china, many female babies are abandoned by their parents. The baby girls are not given a chance of survival. This is contrasted with the celebration which usually comes along with the arrival of a baby boy. The parents have denied the baby girls the right to live and the right of equal treatment.
However, some articles in the universal human rights of declaration are in conflict with the general population of different countries. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a ‘Muslim” female Malaysian wanted to change her religion from Muslim to Christian. When the authority rejected her appeal, she appealed to the high court which was again rejected. Her case caused an uproar within Malaysia. This is against the “human rights” as listed in the universal declaration. Thus, it proves that human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, most of the human rights are given to its people. This encompasses the right to education and the right to healthcare. However, the people living in Singapore are denied the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech – the right to say what you like. Instead, people are held accountable for what they say. This in accordance with Article which stats that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment. Irresponsible words can cause enormous harm to a person reputation.
In conclusion, what human rights are subjective and are free for interpretations. Although its intentions are good, it may not be applicable in every country and in every context.
Chee Ying
Human rights which are universal includes article 1 and 3. Article 1 state that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” while article 3 states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This is universally true. Every child who is born should be treated equally and fairly. However, this is not being practiced by all the countries in the world. In china, many female babies are abandoned by their parents. The baby girls are not given a chance of survival. This is contrasted with the celebration which usually comes along with the arrival of a baby boy. The parents have denied the baby girls the right to live and the right of equal treatment.
However, some articles in the universal human rights of declaration are in conflict with the general population of different countries. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a ‘Muslim” female Malaysian wanted to change her religion from Muslim to Christian. When the authority rejected her appeal, she appealed to the high court which was again rejected. Her case caused an uproar within Malaysia. This is against the “human rights” as listed in the universal declaration. Thus, it proves that human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, most of the human rights are given to its people. This encompasses the right to education and the right to healthcare. However, the people living in Singapore are denied the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech – the right to say what you like. Instead, people are held accountable for what they say. This in accordance with Article which stats that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment. Irresponsible words can cause enormous harm to a person reputation.
In conclusion, what human rights are subjective and are free for interpretations. Although its intentions are good, it may not be applicable in every country and in every context.
Chee Ying
Saturday, July 19, 2008
ORGANS FOR SALE?
Should organ trading be legalised?
The current uproar of illegal organ trading has brought up several ethical and social issues. Many desperate, sickly patients in need of a transplant attempt to buy organs from less- developed countries like Philippines to skip the long waiting queue. Many desperate, less economically well-off people attempt to sell their organs to feed themselves. If organ trading can help two desperate parties, why shouldn’t it be legalised? Should we legalise organ trading? Although human organ trading may help both parties in the short run, the long run implications maybe severe.
Firstly, the human body should be respected and not seem like a merchandise. Donation of organs should be voluntary and not for profit. The sale of human organs for monetary gains will display disrespect to our body. We should cultivate a good culture of compassion in the country, where donation of organs is out of empathy and not out of money. Only then, our society will not be so materialistic and be filled with kindness. There should be a clear definition of organ donation as being an act of kindness and not expecting something in return. In this case, the world will definitely be warmer.
Secondly, human organ trading may not help in increasing the availability of organs that can be transplanted. It may discourage more people from donating their organs. People will not see a need in donating their organs since organs can be so readily available just by paying for it. It will only support the saying that ‘money makes the world go round’ and make our world seem heartless and cold.
In conclusion, organ transplant should be out of compassion and not materialism. Selling our organs will bring about many long term problems and destroy the ethics in the world today. We should learn to respect the body that we were given and not weigh its monetary value. It is only then we will not let ourselves down by respecting our own body because our body and what is inside is priceless.
The current uproar of illegal organ trading has brought up several ethical and social issues. Many desperate, sickly patients in need of a transplant attempt to buy organs from less- developed countries like Philippines to skip the long waiting queue. Many desperate, less economically well-off people attempt to sell their organs to feed themselves. If organ trading can help two desperate parties, why shouldn’t it be legalised? Should we legalise organ trading? Although human organ trading may help both parties in the short run, the long run implications maybe severe.
Firstly, the human body should be respected and not seem like a merchandise. Donation of organs should be voluntary and not for profit. The sale of human organs for monetary gains will display disrespect to our body. We should cultivate a good culture of compassion in the country, where donation of organs is out of empathy and not out of money. Only then, our society will not be so materialistic and be filled with kindness. There should be a clear definition of organ donation as being an act of kindness and not expecting something in return. In this case, the world will definitely be warmer.
Secondly, human organ trading may not help in increasing the availability of organs that can be transplanted. It may discourage more people from donating their organs. People will not see a need in donating their organs since organs can be so readily available just by paying for it. It will only support the saying that ‘money makes the world go round’ and make our world seem heartless and cold.
In conclusion, organ transplant should be out of compassion and not materialism. Selling our organs will bring about many long term problems and destroy the ethics in the world today. We should learn to respect the body that we were given and not weigh its monetary value. It is only then we will not let ourselves down by respecting our own body because our body and what is inside is priceless.
Universal human rights?
In my opinion, I feel that there is no universal human rights. Even though United Nations have tried to get the commitment of all states to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all but the universal nature of these rights and freedom is beyond question.
While it is the duty of States, regardless of their political economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, there is never a perfect system where human rights is universal. Take for example in the United States, the existence of the minority, the blacks are ostracised by the whites and do not receive equal rights as them because of their skin colour. Now, how does this equate to universal human rights where everyone is supposed to be treated equally?
Besides the previous point, cultural and religious backgrounds may also hinder universal human rights. This is evident in the marriage of gays and lesbians which Christianity does not allow. Homosexuals of this religion are denied their basic human rights to be legalised as a married couple. This shows that human rights aren't universal since a group of people may be denied access to the rights they rightfully should have.
Then again, the human right, freedom of expression is commonly challenged against. In many governments of countries, people are not exactly allowed to voice their views out loud or they may be executed. During the Soviet Union period, Joseph Stalin did not allow his citizens to voice unhappiness about his policies or how he governed his country. People who dared to go against him ended in a cruel death. This has once again show us how human rights are not universal. Not allowing person to voice out his opinions is denying his right to speak freely as a human.
Hence, I conclude that there is no existence of universal human rights. In a way or another, there is always something to deny human of certain rights. It's a way of life and it has always been. I doubt it will change in any time to come or in the future. This is how life works and denying certain rights has always been in the mechanism of life, hence this issue does not even has a beginning in the first place.
While it is the duty of States, regardless of their political economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, there is never a perfect system where human rights is universal. Take for example in the United States, the existence of the minority, the blacks are ostracised by the whites and do not receive equal rights as them because of their skin colour. Now, how does this equate to universal human rights where everyone is supposed to be treated equally?
Besides the previous point, cultural and religious backgrounds may also hinder universal human rights. This is evident in the marriage of gays and lesbians which Christianity does not allow. Homosexuals of this religion are denied their basic human rights to be legalised as a married couple. This shows that human rights aren't universal since a group of people may be denied access to the rights they rightfully should have.
Then again, the human right, freedom of expression is commonly challenged against. In many governments of countries, people are not exactly allowed to voice their views out loud or they may be executed. During the Soviet Union period, Joseph Stalin did not allow his citizens to voice unhappiness about his policies or how he governed his country. People who dared to go against him ended in a cruel death. This has once again show us how human rights are not universal. Not allowing person to voice out his opinions is denying his right to speak freely as a human.
Hence, I conclude that there is no existence of universal human rights. In a way or another, there is always something to deny human of certain rights. It's a way of life and it has always been. I doubt it will change in any time to come or in the future. This is how life works and denying certain rights has always been in the mechanism of life, hence this issue does not even has a beginning in the first place.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
For one country to be involved and interfere in the internal affairs of another, it takes more than military power. Many examples proved failure as the country which interfered was unable to grasp the whole situation and thus went for the wrong approach. Hence, in my opinion, its is hardly right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another.
For countries like Mynamar, it will need a lot of knowledge and understanding to change the society. In an ideal world, we would like to see free elections held in Myanmar immediately under international supervision. But its tough and battle-hardened military government is not going to cede power so easily. Many Myanmar military leaders genuinely believe that the country would fall apart without their rule. It is extremely difficult of make a different just by a foreign intervention from another country as it may change the situation for the worse. This, however, does not imply that the situation is unable to change forever. However, we must recognise that the 20 years of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Indeed the military regime of Myanmar remains as strong as ever. As a result, with such a strong foundation of deep influence, it is not wise for any country to interfere with its internal affairs.
In addition, mere military power may not bring peace about the country. Military intervention such as that of Iraq from USA, proved to be another example of a failture. Instead, the Iraqis ended up living through a nightmare. The reputed British medical journal, Lancet, has estimated that there were 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006. Even if these estimates are excessive, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. And it is certainly questionable whether the Iraqis are better off, with hundreds of thousands of them fleeing the country. This add on to explain the fact that military intervention is very likely to result in greater pain among the people. Foreign intervention is hard to gain trust from the local people and the methods used may not be the method which can solve the problem.
In conclusion, it is not wise for another country to intervene with another’s internal affairs as this may bring about negative effects due to lack of understating of the other country.
TIANHE[:
For one country to be involved and interfere in the internal affairs of another, it takes more than military power. Many examples proved failure as the country which interfered was unable to grasp the whole situation and thus went for the wrong approach. Hence, in my opinion, its is hardly right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another.
For countries like Mynamar, it will need a lot of knowledge and understanding to change the society. In an ideal world, we would like to see free elections held in Myanmar immediately under international supervision. But its tough and battle-hardened military government is not going to cede power so easily. Many Myanmar military leaders genuinely believe that the country would fall apart without their rule. It is extremely difficult of make a different just by a foreign intervention from another country as it may change the situation for the worse. This, however, does not imply that the situation is unable to change forever. However, we must recognise that the 20 years of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Indeed the military regime of Myanmar remains as strong as ever. As a result, with such a strong foundation of deep influence, it is not wise for any country to interfere with its internal affairs.
In addition, mere military power may not bring peace about the country. Military intervention such as that of Iraq from USA, proved to be another example of a failture. Instead, the Iraqis ended up living through a nightmare. The reputed British medical journal, Lancet, has estimated that there were 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006. Even if these estimates are excessive, there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. And it is certainly questionable whether the Iraqis are better off, with hundreds of thousands of them fleeing the country. This add on to explain the fact that military intervention is very likely to result in greater pain among the people. Foreign intervention is hard to gain trust from the local people and the methods used may not be the method which can solve the problem.
In conclusion, it is not wise for another country to intervene with another’s internal affairs as this may bring about negative effects due to lack of understating of the other country.
TIANHE[:
Saturday, July 12, 2008
ASSIST OR TAKE CHARGE?
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
As people living in the same Earth, it is only right to show care and concern for other people and other countries. Only then, the world can unite and share peace and prosperity. I therefore agree with Chee Ying that it is right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another. However, there should be some limitations of being involved. The definition of involved should be ‘assisting’ and not ‘taking charge’. There should be some extent of involvement and boundary set to ensure countries do not ‘over- involve’ themselves in the affairs of other countries.
Countries that are involved in the internal affairs of another country should be the assistant and not the leader. If another country puts on a power of wanting to take charge, there will be an absence of respect for the country. If that is so, not only will they not resolve whatever conflicts that were present initially, they will also add on to the rising problems.
One example is the United States control over Iraq. Not only did United States fail to bring Iraq back to the peaceful days, they created more disorder to the country. Their forceful invasion displayed a lack of respect to Iraq and caused ‘654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006’. Therefore, countries that become overly involved by other country’s affairs may not help in bringing solution to the problem but making the problem more severe.
Secondly, I would have to disagree with Chee Ying on ‘applying force’ to the country if they reject help from other concerned countries. Using this method will not help in resolving the problem but add on to the problems faced by the country. Other countries should respect the particular country if they choose to reject assistance and not force them to accept their help. Using forceful means will only make the politics of the country worsen and defeat the purpose of assistance.
An example would be Myanmar and its recent cyclone Nargis strike. The military rule of the country rejected help from other neighboring countries and caused discontent. The discontent displayed by the well-intended countries weakened the military rule in Myanmar. In this case, they not only failed to render help to Myanmar, they also added tension in Myanmar on the military rule.
Therefore, there should be some extent of involvement of countries to a particular country. Most importantly, they should show respect to the country and not force a country to accept their help and involvement. Only then, they will truly help the country and make the world a better place.
As people living in the same Earth, it is only right to show care and concern for other people and other countries. Only then, the world can unite and share peace and prosperity. I therefore agree with Chee Ying that it is right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another. However, there should be some limitations of being involved. The definition of involved should be ‘assisting’ and not ‘taking charge’. There should be some extent of involvement and boundary set to ensure countries do not ‘over- involve’ themselves in the affairs of other countries.
Countries that are involved in the internal affairs of another country should be the assistant and not the leader. If another country puts on a power of wanting to take charge, there will be an absence of respect for the country. If that is so, not only will they not resolve whatever conflicts that were present initially, they will also add on to the rising problems.
One example is the United States control over Iraq. Not only did United States fail to bring Iraq back to the peaceful days, they created more disorder to the country. Their forceful invasion displayed a lack of respect to Iraq and caused ‘654,965 excess deaths in Iraq (or 2.5 per cent of its population) as of June 2006’. Therefore, countries that become overly involved by other country’s affairs may not help in bringing solution to the problem but making the problem more severe.
Secondly, I would have to disagree with Chee Ying on ‘applying force’ to the country if they reject help from other concerned countries. Using this method will not help in resolving the problem but add on to the problems faced by the country. Other countries should respect the particular country if they choose to reject assistance and not force them to accept their help. Using forceful means will only make the politics of the country worsen and defeat the purpose of assistance.
An example would be Myanmar and its recent cyclone Nargis strike. The military rule of the country rejected help from other neighboring countries and caused discontent. The discontent displayed by the well-intended countries weakened the military rule in Myanmar. In this case, they not only failed to render help to Myanmar, they also added tension in Myanmar on the military rule.
Therefore, there should be some extent of involvement of countries to a particular country. Most importantly, they should show respect to the country and not force a country to accept their help and involvement. Only then, they will truly help the country and make the world a better place.
Busybodies?
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
In today’s globalised world, information travels quickly around the globe. What has happen in a part of the world is almost instantaneously known by others. Countries can no longer claim ignorance. In addition, many problems have become worldwide and it is only with the cooperation among the different countries will the problems be resolved. In my opinion, countries have the right to involved with the internal affairs of another country. Being involved with the internal affairs of another country is acceptable but becoming too involved till there is discomfort among the people is not. Countries should not and do not have the right to interfere with the politics of another country. Instead, they should seek to influence the decisions made by another country.
Countries should become involved with another country internal affair when there is lives at risk and the countries leaders are either unwilling or incapable of offering aid. During the recent cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, thousands of deaths were reported while the country’s leader apparently did little to help. Countries should first attempt to seek permission to offer help instead of rushing into the country without consent. Only after countries have tried all methods without success should they apply force on the country. When countries interfere with the internal affairs of another, there will most likely be strong resistance. This may divert the leader’s attention away from the critical issue and focus on opposing the inference. This may indirectly result in even more lives lost defeating the purpose of saving lives.
Countries should not become involved in the politics of another country. This today, there are still doubts over the real reason behind the United States invasion of Iraq. Some has speculated that the decision was made to tap onto the massive oil supply and to prevent Iraq from gaining military might. This might pose as a threat to the United States both economically and physically. This is contrasted with the official reason given which is to free the Iraqis. The results of the invasion are also gloomy with many deaths and continuing war. The Iraqis may have been living a better live before the invasion. How than did the United States armies succeed in freeing the ‘oppressed’ Iraqis? Therefore, countries even with the best of intentions should not invade another country.
In response to Cassandra’s post, she is not really answering the question. Instead, she gives the problems of interfering with another countries internal affair and what they should be doing instead when the stand she takes is that it is right for another country to be involved in the affairs of a country. Her points given are unable to support her stand.
Chee Ying
In today’s globalised world, information travels quickly around the globe. What has happen in a part of the world is almost instantaneously known by others. Countries can no longer claim ignorance. In addition, many problems have become worldwide and it is only with the cooperation among the different countries will the problems be resolved. In my opinion, countries have the right to involved with the internal affairs of another country. Being involved with the internal affairs of another country is acceptable but becoming too involved till there is discomfort among the people is not. Countries should not and do not have the right to interfere with the politics of another country. Instead, they should seek to influence the decisions made by another country.
Countries should become involved with another country internal affair when there is lives at risk and the countries leaders are either unwilling or incapable of offering aid. During the recent cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, thousands of deaths were reported while the country’s leader apparently did little to help. Countries should first attempt to seek permission to offer help instead of rushing into the country without consent. Only after countries have tried all methods without success should they apply force on the country. When countries interfere with the internal affairs of another, there will most likely be strong resistance. This may divert the leader’s attention away from the critical issue and focus on opposing the inference. This may indirectly result in even more lives lost defeating the purpose of saving lives.
Countries should not become involved in the politics of another country. This today, there are still doubts over the real reason behind the United States invasion of Iraq. Some has speculated that the decision was made to tap onto the massive oil supply and to prevent Iraq from gaining military might. This might pose as a threat to the United States both economically and physically. This is contrasted with the official reason given which is to free the Iraqis. The results of the invasion are also gloomy with many deaths and continuing war. The Iraqis may have been living a better live before the invasion. How than did the United States armies succeed in freeing the ‘oppressed’ Iraqis? Therefore, countries even with the best of intentions should not invade another country.
In response to Cassandra’s post, she is not really answering the question. Instead, she gives the problems of interfering with another countries internal affair and what they should be doing instead when the stand she takes is that it is right for another country to be involved in the affairs of a country. Her points given are unable to support her stand.
Chee Ying
Is it ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
In my opinion, I feel that it is only right if a country interferes with another country if the country is facing problems that they themselves cannot cope with. I feel that every country is important and no one should neglect any country even if it is a small one because there are people living in it and every one life is precious.
However, the problem is that countries which interferes in the affairs of another may not only be unable to alleviate the situation in that problematic country, very often, they worsen the situation there. Take for example, in Iraq which suffered for decades under Saddam Hussein rule, the Americans and British took things into their hands without even consulting the United Nations(a organisation where countries of the world come together to decide on issues) and invaded Iraq. Their initial plan to bring back Iraq from chaos actually became even worse as there were hundreds of thousands innocent deaths caused and Iraq was in a further chaotic state than before. Before we knew it, The Americans and British had pulled out their troops, leaving the Iraq citizens to fend for themselves.
Perhaps, representatives of countries should learn from one of these biggest mistakes made in the political history and not repeat it again. Sometimes, we just can't use force to control everything or assume that things will go the way it is suppose to be when you use force because people can be stubborn and using force can very likely back stab you. I feel that what one should do is to gently open their arms and show the country the way to solve their own problem instead of taking things into their hands and try to be totally involved in the country. Like in the case of Myanmar, perhaps instead of thinking to invade their country and use force to suppress the problem, neighbouring countries like Mumbai to Singapore can invite representatives of Myanmar to see how backward they are compared to this developed cities and change their mindset to try and improve on their situation by themselves. Some things are left better to be solved by the person himself and that another person should only help him to a certain extent.
However, the problem is that countries which interferes in the affairs of another may not only be unable to alleviate the situation in that problematic country, very often, they worsen the situation there. Take for example, in Iraq which suffered for decades under Saddam Hussein rule, the Americans and British took things into their hands without even consulting the United Nations(a organisation where countries of the world come together to decide on issues) and invaded Iraq. Their initial plan to bring back Iraq from chaos actually became even worse as there were hundreds of thousands innocent deaths caused and Iraq was in a further chaotic state than before. Before we knew it, The Americans and British had pulled out their troops, leaving the Iraq citizens to fend for themselves.
Perhaps, representatives of countries should learn from one of these biggest mistakes made in the political history and not repeat it again. Sometimes, we just can't use force to control everything or assume that things will go the way it is suppose to be when you use force because people can be stubborn and using force can very likely back stab you. I feel that what one should do is to gently open their arms and show the country the way to solve their own problem instead of taking things into their hands and try to be totally involved in the country. Like in the case of Myanmar, perhaps instead of thinking to invade their country and use force to suppress the problem, neighbouring countries like Mumbai to Singapore can invite representatives of Myanmar to see how backward they are compared to this developed cities and change their mindset to try and improve on their situation by themselves. Some things are left better to be solved by the person himself and that another person should only help him to a certain extent.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Education for society or education for the individual - which is more important? [AJC 2000]
Education plays a big role in grooming the society’s next generation to be equipped with the ability to handle the responsibility of enabling a functioning economy. As a result, many countries placed much effort in planning their education system to suit their society. However, education for society will tend to overlook the individual needs of students and force them to become what the society needs them to become. It will not only compromise the real needs of individuals, it will also create a negative set of thinking that students with little academic achievements are deemed useless.
Education for society will force students to have the similar set of thinking and to excel in the same areas despite their different strengths and interests. In ‘Why education is bad for kids’ by Rachel Grobstein, it is said that education now teaches the student to ‘learn that to be confused or wrong is a crime.’ The school wants Right answers, and he learns countless ways to con the teacher into thinking he knows something he doesn’t; he learns to bluff and cheat. This is one of the possible outcomes due to education for society, where learning is not the most important. What is important becomes how to fit in and get results that is needed in order to get on with education. Every individual is different and needs a different style of education. By education for society, the system will group all the different individuals under the same category to undergo the same education. This not only handicaps the learning process of the individuals, it will also hinder them from exploring their real strengths.
Taken from School Daze, Timeasia, ‘Our education system,’ says Wang Jenn-wu, a former member of Taiwan’s Cabinet-level education reform committee, ‘was so focused on the country’s economic success that it ignored individual success.’ It further proves that education for individual will produce a finer batch of leaders and workers than education for society. Over focus on designing the education system to suit the country’s needs will prevent the individual to discover their inner talents and use them to maximize benefit the society. Hence education for society is a poorer choice compared to education for individual.
TIANHE[:
Education plays a big role in grooming the society’s next generation to be equipped with the ability to handle the responsibility of enabling a functioning economy. As a result, many countries placed much effort in planning their education system to suit their society. However, education for society will tend to overlook the individual needs of students and force them to become what the society needs them to become. It will not only compromise the real needs of individuals, it will also create a negative set of thinking that students with little academic achievements are deemed useless.
Education for society will force students to have the similar set of thinking and to excel in the same areas despite their different strengths and interests. In ‘Why education is bad for kids’ by Rachel Grobstein, it is said that education now teaches the student to ‘learn that to be confused or wrong is a crime.’ The school wants Right answers, and he learns countless ways to con the teacher into thinking he knows something he doesn’t; he learns to bluff and cheat. This is one of the possible outcomes due to education for society, where learning is not the most important. What is important becomes how to fit in and get results that is needed in order to get on with education. Every individual is different and needs a different style of education. By education for society, the system will group all the different individuals under the same category to undergo the same education. This not only handicaps the learning process of the individuals, it will also hinder them from exploring their real strengths.
Taken from School Daze, Timeasia, ‘Our education system,’ says Wang Jenn-wu, a former member of Taiwan’s Cabinet-level education reform committee, ‘was so focused on the country’s economic success that it ignored individual success.’ It further proves that education for individual will produce a finer batch of leaders and workers than education for society. Over focus on designing the education system to suit the country’s needs will prevent the individual to discover their inner talents and use them to maximize benefit the society. Hence education for society is a poorer choice compared to education for individual.
TIANHE[:
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The main function of today's education is to enable peeple to gain employment?
I personally feel that the function of today's function is to provide a child with a learning system that will allow the child to gain information on his own. However, in today's society, the main function of education is to continuously push a child to try and attain higher levels of education. Parents and teachers blindly do so by making sure that their child does well through tuitions, and doing homework non-stop. Adults do all these to ensure a place for their child in a good university so that they will be able to graduate with a prestigious degree and enter the workforce to successfully secure a job with good prospects. And humans never get out of this rat race, continuously following this path of education that lacks of many.
The factors that leads to employment of today's employees is largely resulted by two factors, namely degree and social skills. The education does give a person the path to earning the 'correct' certificates to get a job but the education system fail to address the lack of social sills people have nowadays. Students go to school, finish their homework, study and go to bed. They follow these routines so much and in the result lose touch with people around them. Therefore, as much as a degree today earns a person a place in the workforce, he or she may lack the lack essential skills of handing people which is a important skill needed in whichever job. This is one large problem that most lack that is not taught in the education system which will not get you that job.
This is the result of today's education and children seldom get a glimpse of the real world and how to learn to gain information independently instead of being spoon-fed by others. The constant protection that adults have shielded children from the real world and caused many young adults these days to fail to handle people well and some end up failing in their career.
Hence, I feel that the main function of education should provide a child a self-learning system whereby they can find new things on their own and allow them to be well-versed in socialising as these are skills they inevitably pick up as they grow older and experience many new activities.
The factors that leads to employment of today's employees is largely resulted by two factors, namely degree and social skills. The education does give a person the path to earning the 'correct' certificates to get a job but the education system fail to address the lack of social sills people have nowadays. Students go to school, finish their homework, study and go to bed. They follow these routines so much and in the result lose touch with people around them. Therefore, as much as a degree today earns a person a place in the workforce, he or she may lack the lack essential skills of handing people which is a important skill needed in whichever job. This is one large problem that most lack that is not taught in the education system which will not get you that job.
This is the result of today's education and children seldom get a glimpse of the real world and how to learn to gain information independently instead of being spoon-fed by others. The constant protection that adults have shielded children from the real world and caused many young adults these days to fail to handle people well and some end up failing in their career.
Hence, I feel that the main function of education should provide a child a self-learning system whereby they can find new things on their own and allow them to be well-versed in socialising as these are skills they inevitably pick up as they grow older and experience many new activities.
Friday, June 27, 2008
KNOWLEDGEABLE OR EDUCATED?
‘Education has failed to make people educated’. Do u agree that this is true for people of your country?
An educated person is one who has undergone a process of learning that results in enhanced mental capability to function effectively in familiar and novel situations in personal and intellectual life. From the above definition, it is apparent that the people in Singapore are not educated even with the current effective education system. Our students today have still failed to apply their text-book based knowledge into real life situation and education in Singapore has only made them more knowledgeable, rather than educated. Therefore I agree that education has failed to make people of Singapore educated today.
Education in Singapore is still inflexible even with the various attempts of promoting interactive learning. Students are still behaving like ‘sponges’, with the only intention of listening and absorbing their teachers’ teachings without any form of contribution to the class with their own views and opinions. Students are too used to this learning style so much so that teachers find it hard to convert to the ‘teach less learn more’ method encouraged by the ministry. With such an education system that is hard to revamp, it is no doubt why students are unable to be educated, where they can have a chance to display their skills not only during examinations but during their everyday life.
Another reason why the education has failed to make people educated is due to the lack of opportunities to allow students to learn. A normal school curriculum does not allow students to have sufficient time to think out of the box or attempt to use their knowledge from textbooks to apply it into their daily life. The education has only allowed the people of Singapore to be good ‘memorizers’ and has failed in making them more flexible in their thinking. Students do not understand the importance of the application of knowledge and the examinations made them believe that being good ‘memorizers’ are good enough to cope for examinations.
From all these reasons, it is evident that there are more to be done in improving the education to make the people of Singapore more educated rather than being a more efficient ‘memorizer’.
An educated person is one who has undergone a process of learning that results in enhanced mental capability to function effectively in familiar and novel situations in personal and intellectual life. From the above definition, it is apparent that the people in Singapore are not educated even with the current effective education system. Our students today have still failed to apply their text-book based knowledge into real life situation and education in Singapore has only made them more knowledgeable, rather than educated. Therefore I agree that education has failed to make people of Singapore educated today.
Education in Singapore is still inflexible even with the various attempts of promoting interactive learning. Students are still behaving like ‘sponges’, with the only intention of listening and absorbing their teachers’ teachings without any form of contribution to the class with their own views and opinions. Students are too used to this learning style so much so that teachers find it hard to convert to the ‘teach less learn more’ method encouraged by the ministry. With such an education system that is hard to revamp, it is no doubt why students are unable to be educated, where they can have a chance to display their skills not only during examinations but during their everyday life.
Another reason why the education has failed to make people educated is due to the lack of opportunities to allow students to learn. A normal school curriculum does not allow students to have sufficient time to think out of the box or attempt to use their knowledge from textbooks to apply it into their daily life. The education has only allowed the people of Singapore to be good ‘memorizers’ and has failed in making them more flexible in their thinking. Students do not understand the importance of the application of knowledge and the examinations made them believe that being good ‘memorizers’ are good enough to cope for examinations.
From all these reasons, it is evident that there are more to be done in improving the education to make the people of Singapore more educated rather than being a more efficient ‘memorizer’.
Is formal education over valued?
Formal education is education from schools usually from state schools by professional teachers. The value of formal education is to instill a common set of values in the students. It also serves as recognition of being able to meet a certain level of competency in reading, writing and speaking.
Therefore, is formal education over valued?
In my opinion, formal education especially at the lower level is valuable. It serves as an equal platform for all students, regardless of wealth status to excel. Every student who attends school will achieve a basic set of skill including reading, writing, counting and socializing. All these skills are essential for survival in this world as it become increasingly knowledge based. With reading, writing and counting skills, information can easily be understood by all, even the poorest and least educated. School is also one of the first places where children leave there home to be with strangers who will become friends. It is also a place where students will realize that the world out there is large and that different people have different way of thinking and way of life. School eil;l help to increase their exposure to the world.
However, higher formal education is over valued by society, especially Asian society. A formal education is deemed as an important tool to improve the job prospects and therefore improve the family social standing. Yet, in the real world, prove of formal recognition serves only as a stepping stone to find a job. What determines the promotional prospects is based on individual competence in meeting the job requirements. Formal education no longer plays an important part of the person’s life. Besides the need to use basic math in our daily life, much of what we learn is irrelevant and non-applicable. On the other hand, education which is relevant to one’s job is needed to improve the productivity of the workers.
Therefore, formal education is valuable when at the basic level. However, when it comes to higher education, it is not necessary valuable. The value of education is not easily measured and it differs from person to person.
Chee Ying
Therefore, is formal education over valued?
In my opinion, formal education especially at the lower level is valuable. It serves as an equal platform for all students, regardless of wealth status to excel. Every student who attends school will achieve a basic set of skill including reading, writing, counting and socializing. All these skills are essential for survival in this world as it become increasingly knowledge based. With reading, writing and counting skills, information can easily be understood by all, even the poorest and least educated. School is also one of the first places where children leave there home to be with strangers who will become friends. It is also a place where students will realize that the world out there is large and that different people have different way of thinking and way of life. School eil;l help to increase their exposure to the world.
However, higher formal education is over valued by society, especially Asian society. A formal education is deemed as an important tool to improve the job prospects and therefore improve the family social standing. Yet, in the real world, prove of formal recognition serves only as a stepping stone to find a job. What determines the promotional prospects is based on individual competence in meeting the job requirements. Formal education no longer plays an important part of the person’s life. Besides the need to use basic math in our daily life, much of what we learn is irrelevant and non-applicable. On the other hand, education which is relevant to one’s job is needed to improve the productivity of the workers.
Therefore, formal education is valuable when at the basic level. However, when it comes to higher education, it is not necessary valuable. The value of education is not easily measured and it differs from person to person.
Chee Ying
Sunday, May 11, 2008
It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. Do you agree?
To reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts means having to make environmental conservation efforts a generally accept opinion around the world. This is extremely hard to convince especially in heavily industrialised developing countries such as China. Moreover, some people may disagree with the environmental conservation efforts as the positive effects on the Earth are too minor and sometimes negligible in the short run. Hence, I feel that it is very difficult to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts.
In the best studied polar bear population of 1000 bears in the West Hudson Bay, we can only save less than one-tenth of a polar bear in year despite efforts to cut down carbon dioxide emissions. This may be hindering the people and countries to put in their best effort for environmental conservation, especially when these efforts came with a compromise with their current style of living. In addition, we are told that global warming will wipe out polar bears. But we are not told that over the past 40years-while temperatures have risen – the global polar bear population has risen from 5,000 to 25,000. These statistics make the aim of environmental efforts seem weak and unconvincing. The results from these efforts seems to produce little or even contradictive effects.
Moreover, as told on chee ying's article, the Kyoto protocol which aims to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into the environment is not as successful as it has yet to be sign by the three major greenhouse gases emitters India, China and the United States which contributes 35 per cent of the world greenhouse gases. As China and India are both developing countries, demands for them to cut down drastically on energy consumption and carbon dioxide will be over the board. Upon seeing that the developing countries have the excuse not to sign the treaty, developed countries such as the United States will also be reluctant to agree to the treaty.
In Conclusion, it is difficult to reach a global consensus as there will always be contradicting views on global consciousness. Hence a clearer and more logical line must be drawn between the sacrifices made and the benefits on environmental conservation.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.Do u agree?
Environmental problems arising throughout the world has plagued us since the beginning of the 21th century. If nobody comes forward to solve this issue and rectify the problem, it's going to affect everyone globally harshly. It's not just an individual's nor country's problem but an issue concerning the whole world. Hence, there is definitely a need to surface the large scale environmental problem we are facing here.
Just as a mother concerned about her child's well-being and rushes to buy organic food for them, global warming-one of the largest global environmental issue should have everyone rushing to alleviate this problem. The approach taken by organisations and government has namely led to the result of two famous protocols-the Kyoto protocol and Montreal protocol. The aim of Kyoto protocol is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases while the aim of the Montreal protocol is to ban the use of substances contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. While the aims of the two protocols differ, their main goal is to prevent the environment from being further aggravated. This show the extent of this issue and how the hype over it is not unnecessary.
Here are some fears to keep you mind-boggling-natural resources are depleting, increasing population leaving people with lesser food resources, species are becoming extinct leading to dreaded chain of the ecosystem, forests are vanishing and pollution is worsening. Now, does this scare you? Perhaps or perhaps not for those unfeeling creatures unworthy of the human race. With the increase of human activity in extracting minerals and other minerals of Earth, humanity may end up killing itself in the process. The exponential rate of the increase of the environmental problems has caused to the world to create a hype over it. Yet it's necessary to arouse the attention of people around the world to do their bit in saving the ailing Earth.
With regards to ECY's post, I agree with what she has to say. It'll take time for human to change their mindset on how resources should be deviated to used to find ways to save the Earth. Yet, the time taken for people cannot take too long or the consequences would have been too late to rectify. Governments must take the first step to alleviate this problem, only then can its people follow suit. I'm sure that if everyone cooperates, there'll still be hope for the human race and it's environment.
Just as a mother concerned about her child's well-being and rushes to buy organic food for them, global warming-one of the largest global environmental issue should have everyone rushing to alleviate this problem. The approach taken by organisations and government has namely led to the result of two famous protocols-the Kyoto protocol and Montreal protocol. The aim of Kyoto protocol is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases while the aim of the Montreal protocol is to ban the use of substances contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. While the aims of the two protocols differ, their main goal is to prevent the environment from being further aggravated. This show the extent of this issue and how the hype over it is not unnecessary.
Here are some fears to keep you mind-boggling-natural resources are depleting, increasing population leaving people with lesser food resources, species are becoming extinct leading to dreaded chain of the ecosystem, forests are vanishing and pollution is worsening. Now, does this scare you? Perhaps or perhaps not for those unfeeling creatures unworthy of the human race. With the increase of human activity in extracting minerals and other minerals of Earth, humanity may end up killing itself in the process. The exponential rate of the increase of the environmental problems has caused to the world to create a hype over it. Yet it's necessary to arouse the attention of people around the world to do their bit in saving the ailing Earth.
With regards to ECY's post, I agree with what she has to say. It'll take time for human to change their mindset on how resources should be deviated to used to find ways to save the Earth. Yet, the time taken for people cannot take too long or the consequences would have been too late to rectify. Governments must take the first step to alleviate this problem, only then can its people follow suit. I'm sure that if everyone cooperates, there'll still be hope for the human race and it's environment.
It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. Do you agree?
Environmental problems like global warming, pollution, biodiversity and habitat loss and deforestation affects the whole world. The problems are not contained within a country. Instead, any action taken by a country which harms the environment will also negatively affect the rest of the world. To prevent and reduce the environment problems requires most if not all the countries combine effort. Therefore, I do not agree that it is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. The 1987 Montreal Protocol and the 2002 Kyoto Protocol are examples of the world agreeing to take steps to conserve the environment. However, reaching a global consensus will not be easy.
A highly successful plan, the Montreal Protocol which aims to cut down on production of substances that depletes the ozone is agreed to by 191 nations out of 195 nations in the world. It includes both the developed and developing countries while giving the developing countries a 10 years grace period. This shows that it is possible for the countries in the world to come to an agreement to save the earth. Countries put aside economic needs to concentrate on the needs of the global community.
However, the Kyoto protocol which aims to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into the environment is not as successful as it has yet to be sign by the three major greenhouse gases emitters India, China and the United States which contributes 35 per cent of the world greenhouse gases. The United States refusal to ratify the protocol was due to the exemption given to China, a developing country which is the second largest greenhouse gases emitters. 175 countries have ratified the protocol. The Kyoto protocol shows the difficulty in getting all the different countries to agree on a common solution. Each country looks out for its own need first before looking at the needs of the whole world.
In conclusion, although is it possible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts, it will be a difficult and long journey with many rounds of debate.
Chee Ying
A highly successful plan, the Montreal Protocol which aims to cut down on production of substances that depletes the ozone is agreed to by 191 nations out of 195 nations in the world. It includes both the developed and developing countries while giving the developing countries a 10 years grace period. This shows that it is possible for the countries in the world to come to an agreement to save the earth. Countries put aside economic needs to concentrate on the needs of the global community.
However, the Kyoto protocol which aims to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into the environment is not as successful as it has yet to be sign by the three major greenhouse gases emitters India, China and the United States which contributes 35 per cent of the world greenhouse gases. The United States refusal to ratify the protocol was due to the exemption given to China, a developing country which is the second largest greenhouse gases emitters. 175 countries have ratified the protocol. The Kyoto protocol shows the difficulty in getting all the different countries to agree on a common solution. Each country looks out for its own need first before looking at the needs of the whole world.
In conclusion, although is it possible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts, it will be a difficult and long journey with many rounds of debate.
Chee Ying
Friday, May 9, 2008
UNNECESSARY HYPE?
The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do u agree?
Environmental issues like global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases are definitely concerning issues to each and everyone of use living in the world today. Living in the same earth, we all have a part to play in protecting it. Therefore, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary as it will serve as a warning to the people on doing our part in saving the earth.
Firstly, the hype over these issues can influence and motivate people to put in more effort into the conservation of the environment. The production of films like ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ can make people begin to contribute in preserving the environment. Environmental issues can allow people to take the first step to defend the environment. With the first step taken by some people, even the majority who are not particular about contributing to the conservation of the environment will make an attempt to do their part. This is because the minority will ‘set an example for other people’ and consequently, the hype over environmental issues will eventually allow the people to take action on protecting the environment.
Other than that, the hype of such issues creates a sense of urgency among the people to permit them to understand the emergency of these problems and immediately think of solutions to solve these critical environmental problems. The raising up of environmental issues can allow the actions that pollute the environment to come to a stop. A treaty was signed by Kyoto, Japan to address the issues on environmental problems. The hype over environmental issues definitely serves as a catalyst to allow actions for solutions on environmental problems.
The hype over environmental issues is certainly necessary as it will eventually allow the people to know about the severe problems faced by the environment and let us think of solutions to solve these problems. Therefore, we should be concern about environmental issues and do our part as the citizens of the earth.
Environmental issues like global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases are definitely concerning issues to each and everyone of use living in the world today. Living in the same earth, we all have a part to play in protecting it. Therefore, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary as it will serve as a warning to the people on doing our part in saving the earth.
Firstly, the hype over these issues can influence and motivate people to put in more effort into the conservation of the environment. The production of films like ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ can make people begin to contribute in preserving the environment. Environmental issues can allow people to take the first step to defend the environment. With the first step taken by some people, even the majority who are not particular about contributing to the conservation of the environment will make an attempt to do their part. This is because the minority will ‘set an example for other people’ and consequently, the hype over environmental issues will eventually allow the people to take action on protecting the environment.
Other than that, the hype of such issues creates a sense of urgency among the people to permit them to understand the emergency of these problems and immediately think of solutions to solve these critical environmental problems. The raising up of environmental issues can allow the actions that pollute the environment to come to a stop. A treaty was signed by Kyoto, Japan to address the issues on environmental problems. The hype over environmental issues definitely serves as a catalyst to allow actions for solutions on environmental problems.
The hype over environmental issues is certainly necessary as it will eventually allow the people to know about the severe problems faced by the environment and let us think of solutions to solve these problems. Therefore, we should be concern about environmental issues and do our part as the citizens of the earth.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Given the problems that plague the Olympics, has the modern Olympics lost it purpose?
The purpose of the modern Olympics is to bring nations closer together and today, it still serves as the best possible platform to achieve this aim. It is also stated in the Olympics creed: “the most important thing is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not to triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is to have conquered but to have fought well.” The Olympics is currently the world largest sporting event where 203 countries sent their athletics to compete in the various sporting events. The Olympics also includes 28 fully recognized sports giving an equal chance for the different countries to excel.
However, there are many problems that are associated with the Olympic like boycotting, politics, violence and doping. The most serious problem is boycotting. It goes against the purpose of the Olympics. By boycotting the event, countries will be further divided instead of becoming closer. Many countries do so to show their displeasure about what the host countries had done. Many boycotts are decided by the government with political agenda instead of the athletics themselves. The Olympics was also disrupted by the two world wars indicating that the Olympics is insufficient to prevent violence between two countries.
Another major problem with the Olympics is the emphasis on winning medals. Many countries offer monetary reward to their athletes. This competitive sprit may cause discord instead of friendliness between participants of the different countries. The drive to excel may result in athletes who abuse drugs to increase their performance. The athletes may not be willing to make friends due to the intense competition.
Therefore in conclusion, although the Olympics may not have achieved it aim of bring nations closer together, it has not lost its purpose. What needs to be done is to eradicate the problems through education and create more goodwill between nations with the hope of achieving a more tolerant and peaceful world.
Chee Ying
However, there are many problems that are associated with the Olympic like boycotting, politics, violence and doping. The most serious problem is boycotting. It goes against the purpose of the Olympics. By boycotting the event, countries will be further divided instead of becoming closer. Many countries do so to show their displeasure about what the host countries had done. Many boycotts are decided by the government with political agenda instead of the athletics themselves. The Olympics was also disrupted by the two world wars indicating that the Olympics is insufficient to prevent violence between two countries.
Another major problem with the Olympics is the emphasis on winning medals. Many countries offer monetary reward to their athletes. This competitive sprit may cause discord instead of friendliness between participants of the different countries. The drive to excel may result in athletes who abuse drugs to increase their performance. The athletes may not be willing to make friends due to the intense competition.
Therefore in conclusion, although the Olympics may not have achieved it aim of bring nations closer together, it has not lost its purpose. What needs to be done is to eradicate the problems through education and create more goodwill between nations with the hope of achieving a more tolerant and peaceful world.
Chee Ying
The Union between sport and business is "often an easy one"?
Since decades ago, companies have always been sponsoring famous sportspeople by getting them to endorse their products. In my opinion, there are reasons why the union between sports and business is an uneasy sight.
The merging of sports and enterprises often leads one to thinking whether the modern sports in the world is around only because of such businesses to provide for them. It wavers people's thoughts as to whether they are supporting their favourite sportsperson or whether they are supporting the companies sponsoring them doing the likes of many by going out to buy products endorsed or sponsored by famous sportspeople. With the results of people's actions, it pushes companies to continue their making money strategies of using sportspeople to advertise their products. This ongoing cycle makes one think it is the right thing to be happening. Renowned sportspeople also have to stay firm in their ground and not be easily swayed to what's happening in the showbiz where stars are condemned for their actions like taking drugs and other scandals. This has made it hard for famous sportspeople to stay on track as it takes a lot of resilience to keep focused which triggers one to thinking whether there is a need for sportspeople to suffer such a fate because of the connections they have with the world.
Till today, co-operation between sports and business are still ongoing and that economic bond has become even closer. Modern celebrity sportspeople like Maria Sharapova-a renowned tennis player, is sponsored by companies like Nike to appear trendy and flashy on the court with their attire. She endorses companies like Canon to promote their cameras. With such attractive rewards, how can one not succumb to temptation by rejecting all offers just to maintain the spirit of being a true sportsperson by playing the sport just to win honour for themselves and the country. With the change in the society and their thinking, it people feel that the union between that the sports and business is an uncomfortable one. Yet, people go with the flow and do not oppose which then leads to another question for thinking, "What values do we hold these days?"
The merging of sports and enterprises often leads one to thinking whether the modern sports in the world is around only because of such businesses to provide for them. It wavers people's thoughts as to whether they are supporting their favourite sportsperson or whether they are supporting the companies sponsoring them doing the likes of many by going out to buy products endorsed or sponsored by famous sportspeople. With the results of people's actions, it pushes companies to continue their making money strategies of using sportspeople to advertise their products. This ongoing cycle makes one think it is the right thing to be happening. Renowned sportspeople also have to stay firm in their ground and not be easily swayed to what's happening in the showbiz where stars are condemned for their actions like taking drugs and other scandals. This has made it hard for famous sportspeople to stay on track as it takes a lot of resilience to keep focused which triggers one to thinking whether there is a need for sportspeople to suffer such a fate because of the connections they have with the world.
Till today, co-operation between sports and business are still ongoing and that economic bond has become even closer. Modern celebrity sportspeople like Maria Sharapova-a renowned tennis player, is sponsored by companies like Nike to appear trendy and flashy on the court with their attire. She endorses companies like Canon to promote their cameras. With such attractive rewards, how can one not succumb to temptation by rejecting all offers just to maintain the spirit of being a true sportsperson by playing the sport just to win honour for themselves and the country. With the change in the society and their thinking, it people feel that the union between that the sports and business is an uncomfortable one. Yet, people go with the flow and do not oppose which then leads to another question for thinking, "What values do we hold these days?"
Friday, May 2, 2008
WHY EXERCISE?
Application question 4
The author raises several reasons why people today need exercise. Do u agree with them? Justify your answer.
Exercise can help to stimulate our immune system and allows us to keep fit constantly. In the world today, exercise can help us cope with the change in our lifestyle and habits. It also enables us to be prevented from diseases.
Firstly, in the modernised and technology-based world today, food has turned processed and unnatural. The food we consume today contains ‘processed sugar and salt’ that may lead to many health problems such as ‘hypertension, obesity and constipation’. The unhealthy lifestyle led by the people today also contributes to the risks of contradicting these diseases. People nowadays are generally coping with work and studies. During free time, they would definitely choose to sit around to relax then to do vigorous exercises. Therefore, with their hectic schedule, they are unable to find time to do regular workouts. With the unhealthy lifestyle that will lead to a high risk of contracting ‘the present disease epidemics’, people will definitely need to exercise.
Secondly, exercise will build up our immune system that will bring us good health. It boosts ‘disease prevention’ and ‘health enhancement’. When we exercise, it boosts the blood circulation of our heart and brain and we will be able to think better, which will increase our ‘quality of life’, where we can have a good health and enjoy life to the fullest. Exercise is key to ‘quality of life’, exercise can promote good health and only with good health, we can then have good quality of life. With the failing immune system in people, exercise is essential to allow good health.
Finally, exercise has plenty of benefits to the people. In order to cope with changes in lifestyle, technology advancements and maintenance of good health, exercise should no be neglected. Instead, we should all embrace exercises and promote regular exercising in order to maintain good health and have ‘excellent quality of life’.
The author raises several reasons why people today need exercise. Do u agree with them? Justify your answer.
Exercise can help to stimulate our immune system and allows us to keep fit constantly. In the world today, exercise can help us cope with the change in our lifestyle and habits. It also enables us to be prevented from diseases.
Firstly, in the modernised and technology-based world today, food has turned processed and unnatural. The food we consume today contains ‘processed sugar and salt’ that may lead to many health problems such as ‘hypertension, obesity and constipation’. The unhealthy lifestyle led by the people today also contributes to the risks of contradicting these diseases. People nowadays are generally coping with work and studies. During free time, they would definitely choose to sit around to relax then to do vigorous exercises. Therefore, with their hectic schedule, they are unable to find time to do regular workouts. With the unhealthy lifestyle that will lead to a high risk of contracting ‘the present disease epidemics’, people will definitely need to exercise.
Secondly, exercise will build up our immune system that will bring us good health. It boosts ‘disease prevention’ and ‘health enhancement’. When we exercise, it boosts the blood circulation of our heart and brain and we will be able to think better, which will increase our ‘quality of life’, where we can have a good health and enjoy life to the fullest. Exercise is key to ‘quality of life’, exercise can promote good health and only with good health, we can then have good quality of life. With the failing immune system in people, exercise is essential to allow good health.
Finally, exercise has plenty of benefits to the people. In order to cope with changes in lifestyle, technology advancements and maintenance of good health, exercise should no be neglected. Instead, we should all embrace exercises and promote regular exercising in order to maintain good health and have ‘excellent quality of life’.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Effectiveness of using harsh methods when dealing with criminals
I feel that torture is essential when it comes to dealing with criminals. When harsh methods of punishment are used on criminals, it causes many positive effects-criminals are scared and no longer commit a crime, it deters people from committing a crime and etc. Thus, painful punishments are qquite effective as it helps to keep the society peaceful and in balance as people create less havoc. Statistics have shown that for every murderer executed, numbers of murders are reduced. This shows that harsh methods of punishment of criminals such as capial punishment are effective as people are aware of the consequences and are more likely to not commit a crime.
Capital punishment as one of the harsh methods of punishing a criminal, is a very cruel method and can be said to be one of the most effective methods used to deal with criminals. Capital punishment is death sentence of a criminal and it means to end a person's life. It is mostly sentenced to criminals who are murderers. Although some say that it is against human rights to take life away from people, there's still some justice in saying that by doing so, it will save innocent people as criminals will not be able to murder again. Imagine if a murderer is not punished for his deed, wouldn't it make him think it is not wrong to kill a person? He may then go on to kill more without being punished for that and many innocent lives are taken away becuase of his doing and with the mentality that he will able to get away scot-free with it.
Thus, I feel that harsh methods such as capital punishment are very effective when it comes to dealing with hard-core criminals. This is because if fear and pain is not inflicted onto these criminals, they will develop a mindset to think that it is alright to kill someone or commit a crime because there's no punishment for it or the punishment sentenced is too light to affect them and they continue to hurt people.
Capital punishment as one of the harsh methods of punishing a criminal, is a very cruel method and can be said to be one of the most effective methods used to deal with criminals. Capital punishment is death sentence of a criminal and it means to end a person's life. It is mostly sentenced to criminals who are murderers. Although some say that it is against human rights to take life away from people, there's still some justice in saying that by doing so, it will save innocent people as criminals will not be able to murder again. Imagine if a murderer is not punished for his deed, wouldn't it make him think it is not wrong to kill a person? He may then go on to kill more without being punished for that and many innocent lives are taken away becuase of his doing and with the mentality that he will able to get away scot-free with it.
Thus, I feel that harsh methods such as capital punishment are very effective when it comes to dealing with hard-core criminals. This is because if fear and pain is not inflicted onto these criminals, they will develop a mindset to think that it is alright to kill someone or commit a crime because there's no punishment for it or the punishment sentenced is too light to affect them and they continue to hurt people.
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?
The use of torture during interrogation with criminals and suspects is widely seen although not always revealed. In the light of the interrogators, the use of torture is a method to attain high-quality ‘yield’ and obtain more facts. However, I do not think that the use of torture is always justified in dealing with criminals and terrorist. In my opinion, using of torture may lead to negative consequences such as criminals giving wrong facts just to prevent themselves from other tortures.
Using of torture to coerce confessions is prohibited in many countries. However, this does not stop these activates from going on during interrogations or during the extracting of confessions and testimony. This may be due to the fact that results are indeed seen from using torture. Mr Faris stated that ‘to pull a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives’ was morally right. When it comes to cases concerning the lives of people around the world, using of torture indeed appears to be logical and morally acceptable. In China, torture does not only happen behind doors. Some forms of torture are carried out by officials during their duties in the day, and sometimes to serve as deliberate warning to others. This is a after-effect following the successful cracking of cases after obtaining useful information from the criminals, which may be deadly if the same method is used all over the world.
Torturing not only causes physical damage but usually results in long term emotional damage in the victim. Hence, in order to prevent themselves from tortures, many criminals and terrorists may resort to giving false information. By doing so, the main reason of using torture is not met and the use of torture will not be justified. For example, during the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, there was little yield despite the threats and torture, Instead, he named countless targets inside the U.S. to stop all the pain, all of them immaterial. As a result, abusive interrogations must be taken with consideration as it is very likely to have an opposite effect on the criminals. In the midst of trying to protect their organization and religions, criminals tend to easily lie in order to avoid further torture.
In conclusion, I feel that the use of torture is not always justified as its real intentions may be manipulated along the way. This may lead to a result where false information is given and over abusive torture taking place behind the doors. This not only overthrow the argument that torture yields well and can save people, it always creates a new problem on whether the human rights of the criminals are compromised in order to obtain confessions.
posted by:Tianhe
Using of torture to coerce confessions is prohibited in many countries. However, this does not stop these activates from going on during interrogations or during the extracting of confessions and testimony. This may be due to the fact that results are indeed seen from using torture. Mr Faris stated that ‘to pull a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives’ was morally right. When it comes to cases concerning the lives of people around the world, using of torture indeed appears to be logical and morally acceptable. In China, torture does not only happen behind doors. Some forms of torture are carried out by officials during their duties in the day, and sometimes to serve as deliberate warning to others. This is a after-effect following the successful cracking of cases after obtaining useful information from the criminals, which may be deadly if the same method is used all over the world.
Torturing not only causes physical damage but usually results in long term emotional damage in the victim. Hence, in order to prevent themselves from tortures, many criminals and terrorists may resort to giving false information. By doing so, the main reason of using torture is not met and the use of torture will not be justified. For example, during the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, there was little yield despite the threats and torture, Instead, he named countless targets inside the U.S. to stop all the pain, all of them immaterial. As a result, abusive interrogations must be taken with consideration as it is very likely to have an opposite effect on the criminals. In the midst of trying to protect their organization and religions, criminals tend to easily lie in order to avoid further torture.
In conclusion, I feel that the use of torture is not always justified as its real intentions may be manipulated along the way. This may lead to a result where false information is given and over abusive torture taking place behind the doors. This not only overthrow the argument that torture yields well and can save people, it always creates a new problem on whether the human rights of the criminals are compromised in order to obtain confessions.
posted by:Tianhe
Morality of using harsh methods to deal with criminals
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. In most issues, there is a clear difference between them. However, in the issue of using harsh methods on criminals either to punish or getting them to corporate, the distinction becomes blurred. Harsh methods includes inflicting mental or/and physical pain and capital punishment.
Those who argue that the usage of harsh methods is correct believe that the criminals have cause harm to others and therefore need to be punished. The severity of their punishment should be of equal magnitude as that on which they inflict on their victims. They believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. It is only through inflicting harm on the criminals will justice be served.
Those against the usage of harsh methods on the other hand, believe in having respect for life and treating other human beings with dignity. Do not do onto others what you do not want others to do unto you” is what they believe in. Only by treating the criminals with respect can they be taught how to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil. As a civilized country, we should forgive the criminals of their crime and welcome them back into society if they are repent.
My personal stand on this issue is that although we should not use harsh methods on the criminals to serve our own selfish purpose, capital punishment should be melted out when serious crimes like murder is committed. The usage of harsh methods will cause us to be degraded to the level of the criminals. What difference will the police or government members who carry out the ‘punishment’ be from the criminals if they do the same as the criminals? However, I support capital punishment as believe that it is necessary to emphasize the importance of human life. Although by taking the criminal life, the victim will not be brought back to life, the high value placed on human life cannot be taken lightly.
In conclusion, morals values differ from person to person and that there are many different and conflicting viewpoints on this issue. However, each society need to make a choice of implementing harsh punishment and capital punishment on their criminals based on their own circumstances and that there are no right or wrong between the two differing views.
Chee Ying
Those who argue that the usage of harsh methods is correct believe that the criminals have cause harm to others and therefore need to be punished. The severity of their punishment should be of equal magnitude as that on which they inflict on their victims. They believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. It is only through inflicting harm on the criminals will justice be served.
Those against the usage of harsh methods on the other hand, believe in having respect for life and treating other human beings with dignity. Do not do onto others what you do not want others to do unto you” is what they believe in. Only by treating the criminals with respect can they be taught how to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil. As a civilized country, we should forgive the criminals of their crime and welcome them back into society if they are repent.
My personal stand on this issue is that although we should not use harsh methods on the criminals to serve our own selfish purpose, capital punishment should be melted out when serious crimes like murder is committed. The usage of harsh methods will cause us to be degraded to the level of the criminals. What difference will the police or government members who carry out the ‘punishment’ be from the criminals if they do the same as the criminals? However, I support capital punishment as believe that it is necessary to emphasize the importance of human life. Although by taking the criminal life, the victim will not be brought back to life, the high value placed on human life cannot be taken lightly.
In conclusion, morals values differ from person to person and that there are many different and conflicting viewpoints on this issue. However, each society need to make a choice of implementing harsh punishment and capital punishment on their criminals based on their own circumstances and that there are no right or wrong between the two differing views.
Chee Ying
Friday, April 25, 2008
DEATH PENALTY- FOR OR AGAINST?
Application question 2
Are u for or against the death penalty? Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include the material from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term ‘capital’ origins from Latin capitalis, literally means "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime originally was to be punished by the loss of the head. Base on my personal opinion, I feel that the death penalty is a necessity for the maintenance of the peace and order in the society today.
The death penalty serves as a reminder to potential murderers to think twice before acting on a murder. With such a dire consequence for murder, crime rates in the society will remain relatively low and it increases the safety in a country. ‘Most people and murderers in particular, fear death, especially when it follows swiftly and with considerable commission following the commission of a murder’. The death penalty is definitely an essential punishment to all murderers as it will not only serve as a price for them to pay but also a general warning to the society on the dire consequences of murder.
Although the death penalty may be against human rights, where ‘the state has no moral rights to take anyone’s life’, we will still need to think about the big picture. If we allow murderers to receive the death punishment, or less severely, the sentence under manslaughter, the world will definitely be a safer place to live in. If there are no harsh punishments being implemented on grave crimes, people will be careless of whatever crimes they commit and the world one day will be filled with blood and injustice. People may even go around killing strangers for no particular reason. If even murderers enjoy human rights, doesn’t that attribute to the unfairness in the world? In such circumstances, there may be no need to place human rights in mind when implementing the death penalty.
Penalty is definitely ‘capable of satisfying justice’. Only with the implementation of the death penalty on murderers, the awareness of the seriousness committing crimes will then increase. If even criminals are given human rights, will then even be a need to put them behind bars? Therefore, death penalty should be implemented to control the order of the society.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
THINKING ABOUT CRIME
The fact that many crime committers and ignorant, uncertain about the consequence of committing a crime will lead to many more crime committers. The truth is, not all offenders of crime are poor or short of cash. Many are leading contented lives but commit crimes such as robbery due to the ignorance and uncertainty of consequences of crime. The delay and the perception of justice also added on to the increase in crime rates.
For a young man which is about to commit a crime, the uncertainty and delay in dealing with crime will urge him to go ahead. First of all, the costs of him getting caught of snatching a wallet are very low-only one in ten faces the possibility of getting caught. In addition, the chance of him getting into prison is almost close to zero. Due to these uncertainties of consequences of crime, the young man may go ahead and commit the crime. As it is uncertain if he will be held responsible for breaking the law, the young man, just like many young offenders nowadays, may be ignorant and bolder to commit crimes.
In addition, whatever penalties the youth may face, the delays in court preceding might result in a reduction or avoidance of punishment. As a result, it will encourage more offenders of crime. Statistic have shown that the rate of crime decreased when there is a higher probability of imprisonment for those convicted of robbery. The reverse happened when the probability of imprisonment for those convicted of robbery decreases. Hence it shows that the effect of uncertainty and ignorance on crime and perception of justice has a great impact on could-be-offenders of crime. It will encourage more people to commit crimes when the uncertainty of consequences increase among people.
Moreover, it has been proven that people do not commit crime only because of their financial constrain. Many more people commit crimes because of giving to the thought of owning something they want instantly. The delay, uncertainty and ignorance will hence make the people more tempted to commit crime as they will fear less of the penalties which may lie ahead of them.
posted by:Tianhe
For a young man which is about to commit a crime, the uncertainty and delay in dealing with crime will urge him to go ahead. First of all, the costs of him getting caught of snatching a wallet are very low-only one in ten faces the possibility of getting caught. In addition, the chance of him getting into prison is almost close to zero. Due to these uncertainties of consequences of crime, the young man may go ahead and commit the crime. As it is uncertain if he will be held responsible for breaking the law, the young man, just like many young offenders nowadays, may be ignorant and bolder to commit crimes.
In addition, whatever penalties the youth may face, the delays in court preceding might result in a reduction or avoidance of punishment. As a result, it will encourage more offenders of crime. Statistic have shown that the rate of crime decreased when there is a higher probability of imprisonment for those convicted of robbery. The reverse happened when the probability of imprisonment for those convicted of robbery decreases. Hence it shows that the effect of uncertainty and ignorance on crime and perception of justice has a great impact on could-be-offenders of crime. It will encourage more people to commit crimes when the uncertainty of consequences increase among people.
Moreover, it has been proven that people do not commit crime only because of their financial constrain. Many more people commit crimes because of giving to the thought of owning something they want instantly. The delay, uncertainty and ignorance will hence make the people more tempted to commit crime as they will fear less of the penalties which may lie ahead of them.
posted by:Tianhe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)