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.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
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
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Since hundreds of years ago, the mentality was that crime was due to sin and should be punished harshly. Capital punishment, torture and painful physical penalties usually accompanied this view of criminal behaviour. However, today there is an impartial modern sentencing of criminals encompassing five goals namely retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, restoration. The first essential step-retribution is to punish a criminal by inflicting a punishment that is proportionate to his or her crime. For example, the government should not hang a person for a small offence like stealing. However, it is appropriate to hang a person for taking the life of another hence this is the price he or her has to pay. An example is Mas selemat bin kastari who is a Jemaah Islamiah leader and deserves death for the occurrence of terrorists’ attacks in Singapore and other countries. This is a appropriate punishment for him as his actions has caused the lives of many.
To execute the correct punishment on a criminal, governments should take a three- pronged approach consisting of incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation respectively. Incapacitation is one of the means used to put away or keep track of criminals who have committed less serious crimes. As technology advances, incapacitation may be achieved without imprisonment instead it can take place in the form of electronic confinement and biomedical intervention by inserting a chip into a criminal’s body and track his actions.
The next approach to deter a criminal from committing a crime is through punishment to convince other people that criminal is not worthwhile. There are two types of deterrence here mainly specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deterrence aims to prevent a particular offender from engaging in repeated criminality while general deterrence aims to prevent others from committing crimes similar to the one for which a particular offender is sentenced. This makes people think twice about the consequences they have to face if they make an offence.
Another of the three pronged approach is to rehab a criminal through education and psychological treatment to reduce the possibility of future criminality. An example of rehabilitation of criminals is addicted drug users. To curb them from falling into the abyss of addiction, drugs with certain chemicals in them have been invented for drug users to consume to stop their addiction.
The last goal of modern sentencing practice implemented is restoration which is a key component in returning the society back to its normal routine by making the victim and the community as a ‘whole’ again. The various methods include community work service for criminals to contribute back to the society and have programmes for criminals to upgrade themselves so that they will not lose touch with the society when they are released from jail. Advocates have pointed out that the restoration programmes has benefited the rehabilitation of offenders.
To execute the correct punishment on a criminal, governments should take a three- pronged approach consisting of incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation respectively. Incapacitation is one of the means used to put away or keep track of criminals who have committed less serious crimes. As technology advances, incapacitation may be achieved without imprisonment instead it can take place in the form of electronic confinement and biomedical intervention by inserting a chip into a criminal’s body and track his actions.
The next approach to deter a criminal from committing a crime is through punishment to convince other people that criminal is not worthwhile. There are two types of deterrence here mainly specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deterrence aims to prevent a particular offender from engaging in repeated criminality while general deterrence aims to prevent others from committing crimes similar to the one for which a particular offender is sentenced. This makes people think twice about the consequences they have to face if they make an offence.
Another of the three pronged approach is to rehab a criminal through education and psychological treatment to reduce the possibility of future criminality. An example of rehabilitation of criminals is addicted drug users. To curb them from falling into the abyss of addiction, drugs with certain chemicals in them have been invented for drug users to consume to stop their addiction.
The last goal of modern sentencing practice implemented is restoration which is a key component in returning the society back to its normal routine by making the victim and the community as a ‘whole’ again. The various methods include community work service for criminals to contribute back to the society and have programmes for criminals to upgrade themselves so that they will not lose touch with the society when they are released from jail. Advocates have pointed out that the restoration programmes has benefited the rehabilitation of offenders.
PUNISHMENT OR REVENGE?
Do you agree with the author that there is always a tendency to confuse punishment with revenge?
Punishments for crimes committed are for the purpose of deterrence and prevailing of justice, also, punishment will allow a greater protection for the public. However, extent of punishment may be too great that will turn out to be revenge. Punishment is ‘a penalty imposed for violating the law’ that is ‘meted out by a court’ while revenge is ‘inflicting punishment’, but usually ‘by groups or individuals who do not have authority’. Punishment should allow one to repent from their mistakes and not revenge, where it’s an eye for an eye situation. I agree with the author that there is always a tendency to confuse punishment with revenge.
Punishment may be confused with revenge especially when the crime committed is revolting and is deeply etched into the public’s mind. This is when the public will posses a mindset in hope that the criminal gets his own deserts and therefore, confusing punishment with revenge. An example is the murders committed by Saddam Hussein, where many would want him dead for the sinful murders he committed. Only by giving him the death sentence, the public will then feel appeased. Therefore, is the death sentence a punishment or an alternative for revenge?
The death sentence is good example of confusion between punishment and revenge. Is it true that with the death sentence given to the murderer, punishment will be given? Or does the death sentence contain more of revenge than punishment? After all, the murderer will not be able to gain his remorse from this punishment received and the death sentence will then be futile. The death sentence is definitely an example of confusion between punishment and revenge. The death sentence is just a way to revenge in order to allow others to ‘feel justified in saying that the person who has injured us got what he or she deserved’.
There is still much uncertainty between the definition of revenge and punishment. Many assume that punishment is revenge and this misconception allowed the confusion between punishment and revenge to continue. Therefore, when making a punishment, there will always be a certain element of revenge found as there is indeed confusion between revenge and punishment.
Punishments for crimes committed are for the purpose of deterrence and prevailing of justice, also, punishment will allow a greater protection for the public. However, extent of punishment may be too great that will turn out to be revenge. Punishment is ‘a penalty imposed for violating the law’ that is ‘meted out by a court’ while revenge is ‘inflicting punishment’, but usually ‘by groups or individuals who do not have authority’. Punishment should allow one to repent from their mistakes and not revenge, where it’s an eye for an eye situation. I agree with the author that there is always a tendency to confuse punishment with revenge.
Punishment may be confused with revenge especially when the crime committed is revolting and is deeply etched into the public’s mind. This is when the public will posses a mindset in hope that the criminal gets his own deserts and therefore, confusing punishment with revenge. An example is the murders committed by Saddam Hussein, where many would want him dead for the sinful murders he committed. Only by giving him the death sentence, the public will then feel appeased. Therefore, is the death sentence a punishment or an alternative for revenge?
The death sentence is good example of confusion between punishment and revenge. Is it true that with the death sentence given to the murderer, punishment will be given? Or does the death sentence contain more of revenge than punishment? After all, the murderer will not be able to gain his remorse from this punishment received and the death sentence will then be futile. The death sentence is definitely an example of confusion between punishment and revenge. The death sentence is just a way to revenge in order to allow others to ‘feel justified in saying that the person who has injured us got what he or she deserved’.
There is still much uncertainty between the definition of revenge and punishment. Many assume that punishment is revenge and this misconception allowed the confusion between punishment and revenge to continue. Therefore, when making a punishment, there will always be a certain element of revenge found as there is indeed confusion between revenge and punishment.
Utilitarianism- the greatest good for the greatest number
What is Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain or unhappiness, than any alternative. Instead of 'pleasure' and 'happiness' the word 'welfare' is also apt: the value of the consequences of an action is determined solely by the welfare of individuals.
Basic Insights of Utilitarianism
The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place. Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions. We should do whatever will bring the most benefit to all of humanity.
The Purpose of Morality
The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all: The purpose of morality is to guide people’s actions in such a way as to produce a better world. Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. Fundamental ImperativeThe fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is: Always act in the way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. The emphasis is clearly on consequences, not intentions.
Utilitarianism and crime
Most crime goes against the principle of utilitarianism as the commitment of the crime brings about a net negative consequence. It causes both physical and mental harm to another party. Crime like rape and terrorist attack causes more pain than pleasure. When a thief steal, the victim suffer from not only lost of property but also suffer distress and unhappiness. However, if the ‘thief’ steals food for survival, it will generate happiness for the ‘thief’. The pleasure experience by the thief will most likely be much higher than the ‘victim’, assuming that the ‘victim’ is sufficiently well off and is capable of buying more food himself. Therefore, is the act stealing justified? Another example is the abuse of drugs. The abuser gain happiness from committing the act. If he does not cause pain or unhappiness to any other party, can his abuse of drugs be justified?
If Utilitarianism is adopted, the above mention cases will be justified. However, others will deem them as unmoral acts. The term ‘morality’, ‘happiness’ and ‘pain’ are all subjective to individuals. There can be no absolute number to be tagged on to them, so it will almost be impossible to calculate the impact of the act.
Utilitarianism and punishment
Punishment in general may or may not go against the principle of Utilitarianism. By punishing the person who is not likely to commit the crime again, it does not cause pleasure or happiness, or is more preventive of pain or unhappiness. The pain suffered by the offender may be more than the happiness gained by the victim. If so, the punishment will not bring about a net increase of happiness.
However, according to the moral level of the general public, most will want the offender to be punished.
In conclusion, although the principle of Utilitarianism is to make the world a better place, there are cases when it does not apply. It is also difficult to determine what is good for the general public and who will take the decision.
Chee Ying
Information taken from links in http://www.utilitarianism.com/
Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain or unhappiness, than any alternative. Instead of 'pleasure' and 'happiness' the word 'welfare' is also apt: the value of the consequences of an action is determined solely by the welfare of individuals.
Basic Insights of Utilitarianism
The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place. Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions. We should do whatever will bring the most benefit to all of humanity.
The Purpose of Morality
The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all: The purpose of morality is to guide people’s actions in such a way as to produce a better world. Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. Fundamental ImperativeThe fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is: Always act in the way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. The emphasis is clearly on consequences, not intentions.
Utilitarianism and crime
Most crime goes against the principle of utilitarianism as the commitment of the crime brings about a net negative consequence. It causes both physical and mental harm to another party. Crime like rape and terrorist attack causes more pain than pleasure. When a thief steal, the victim suffer from not only lost of property but also suffer distress and unhappiness. However, if the ‘thief’ steals food for survival, it will generate happiness for the ‘thief’. The pleasure experience by the thief will most likely be much higher than the ‘victim’, assuming that the ‘victim’ is sufficiently well off and is capable of buying more food himself. Therefore, is the act stealing justified? Another example is the abuse of drugs. The abuser gain happiness from committing the act. If he does not cause pain or unhappiness to any other party, can his abuse of drugs be justified?
If Utilitarianism is adopted, the above mention cases will be justified. However, others will deem them as unmoral acts. The term ‘morality’, ‘happiness’ and ‘pain’ are all subjective to individuals. There can be no absolute number to be tagged on to them, so it will almost be impossible to calculate the impact of the act.
Utilitarianism and punishment
Punishment in general may or may not go against the principle of Utilitarianism. By punishing the person who is not likely to commit the crime again, it does not cause pleasure or happiness, or is more preventive of pain or unhappiness. The pain suffered by the offender may be more than the happiness gained by the victim. If so, the punishment will not bring about a net increase of happiness.
However, according to the moral level of the general public, most will want the offender to be punished.
In conclusion, although the principle of Utilitarianism is to make the world a better place, there are cases when it does not apply. It is also difficult to determine what is good for the general public and who will take the decision.
Chee Ying
Information taken from links in http://www.utilitarianism.com/
Sunday, April 13, 2008
NEW MEDIA
The argument between the New Media being power to people or threat to stability is very subjective. In my opinion, I feel that it is more of a tool which serves as power to people rather than a threat. With the New Media, the people are able to find a common platform to express their views freely, provided that the views are not biased or extreme.
In society today, true reports among the ‘old media’ are always manipulated to politically correct answers with hidden truths beneath it. One example of such a case being exposed will be Bill Moyers exposes how reporters at newspapers such as the Washington Post consistently deferred to the wishes of the Bush administration or were tricked, pressured or seduced into doing so. Even though 80% of the primary reporting comes from the newspapers, they may not be the truest side of the reporting. This is when the New Media comes in. Bloggers report from a vastly different point of view from journalists. They operate far from the sources of power and have do not need to write in favour of anyone but themselves. Hence their reports come out as a truer side and real opinion as what they thought it should be. In addition, many of these posts have the standard to battle with those written by journalists and more are worth the time to read as compared to newspaper articles and television documentaries.
In the other light, this new power given to people must be taken with care if not may be used to manipulate thinking into their readers. One such case will be the one on Jan 25, when the Singapore Government announced the arrests of three young men under the ISA for their involvement in activities that posed a potential terrorist threat. This is a negative side of giving the new power to the people. I feel that overall the New Media has enabled the people to give a fairer and more factual view of the events happening in the world. However, this power must be treated with respect and margins so as not to abuse this power.
posted by:Tianhe
In society today, true reports among the ‘old media’ are always manipulated to politically correct answers with hidden truths beneath it. One example of such a case being exposed will be Bill Moyers exposes how reporters at newspapers such as the Washington Post consistently deferred to the wishes of the Bush administration or were tricked, pressured or seduced into doing so. Even though 80% of the primary reporting comes from the newspapers, they may not be the truest side of the reporting. This is when the New Media comes in. Bloggers report from a vastly different point of view from journalists. They operate far from the sources of power and have do not need to write in favour of anyone but themselves. Hence their reports come out as a truer side and real opinion as what they thought it should be. In addition, many of these posts have the standard to battle with those written by journalists and more are worth the time to read as compared to newspaper articles and television documentaries.
In the other light, this new power given to people must be taken with care if not may be used to manipulate thinking into their readers. One such case will be the one on Jan 25, when the Singapore Government announced the arrests of three young men under the ISA for their involvement in activities that posed a potential terrorist threat. This is a negative side of giving the new power to the people. I feel that overall the New Media has enabled the people to give a fairer and more factual view of the events happening in the world. However, this power must be treated with respect and margins so as not to abuse this power.
posted by:Tianhe
Friday, April 11, 2008
NEW MEDIA-MAKE OR BREAK?
Whether new media is a power to the people or threat to stability is solely reliant on how users choose to employ it. The rising of the new media gives users a privilege to express their personal thoughts and opinions without much restriction and allow other users to have many perceptions on certain issue. It can permit people to be more objective, where they are allowed to have more than one dimension of views. ‘Voice of the generation’ can also be found on the internet, where common insights are raised and recognition can be gained. In this case, people are most likely to be able to have an extra platform of freedom of expression and promotion for democracy can be allowed.
Not forgetting, the internet is also one substitute of the traditional media, where the internet holds more objective views compared to the newspapers. One example is the incident on the Watergate scandal. The internet will therefore be a good source for cross-referencing with the reports made by the newspapers for their credibility on the reports made.
However, there may be some users who may choose to abuse this license for the internet as a platform for freedom of speech. They may give personal attacks on other religions and races and cause commotion and instability in countries due to their subjective comments. There may be extremists who choose to misuse the internet by spreading extreme ideas on the internet. One instance is the case of teenagers expressing their racism on the internet that resulted in social unhappiness in Singapore.
I agree with Cassandra’s article, where she states that the internet can make or break. The new media can be a double-edged sword, with both its advantages and disadvantages. The crucial point is the responsibility of both the users and the readers in order to allow the internet to be a safe platform for freedom of expression.
Overall, to allow the new media to be a power to the people instead of a threat to stability depends on the responsibility of the users of the new media. The new media can make or break the development on the society, depending on how the users choose to utilize it.
Not forgetting, the internet is also one substitute of the traditional media, where the internet holds more objective views compared to the newspapers. One example is the incident on the Watergate scandal. The internet will therefore be a good source for cross-referencing with the reports made by the newspapers for their credibility on the reports made.
However, there may be some users who may choose to abuse this license for the internet as a platform for freedom of speech. They may give personal attacks on other religions and races and cause commotion and instability in countries due to their subjective comments. There may be extremists who choose to misuse the internet by spreading extreme ideas on the internet. One instance is the case of teenagers expressing their racism on the internet that resulted in social unhappiness in Singapore.
I agree with Cassandra’s article, where she states that the internet can make or break. The new media can be a double-edged sword, with both its advantages and disadvantages. The crucial point is the responsibility of both the users and the readers in order to allow the internet to be a safe platform for freedom of expression.
Overall, to allow the new media to be a power to the people instead of a threat to stability depends on the responsibility of the users of the new media. The new media can make or break the development on the society, depending on how the users choose to utilize it.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
How the new media affect us?
They say that the Internet media is getting unreliable where only a facade of lies exist. Is this really true? To this, there have been some truth to it such as the recent blunder of William Broad defamation against Al Gore's claims about global warming which caused him to lose credibility. The hope for a free press doesn't really seem to be in reach with such problems surfacing. With the existence of bloggers, free press is growing rapidly but will it lead to the downfall of it? I'm betting that either the mistrust of people will lead to the disappearance of these unreliability of Internet media or the influence of blogs and free press will expand it. In either case, the future of Internet free press will be decided by the people.
Even though the Internet free press is becoming incredible, I can't say much for the traditional media-newspapers. They carry a majority of reporting news yet they many a time failed us. Such an example is depicted in a documentary-Buying the War by Bill Moyers exposing how reporters at newspapers such as the Washington Post deferred to the wishes of the Bush administration or were made to do so many other underhand methods. It's really pathetic to see how the press succumb to the government through such ways.
Then again as we go along the route of free press, it seems that it has been abused by radicals to express their extremists' views in the fastest way possible. Recently in Singapore, radicals have been caught and jailed for manifesting their radical ideas in their through word of mouth. With the efficient counter-terrorism efforts, extremist group has been roadblocked and their only way to continue their "mission" of spreading radical thoughts is through individuals which also makes it very hard to catch? With so many people in a country even in a small one like Singapore, how efficient can the police? Perhaps, at the end of the day, we can control freedom of expression to a certain extent. it's certain to stay and that's a fact no one will be to deny because will allow their rights to anyone for it's one of the basic human rights.
With response to chee ying's article-New media-Power of people or threat to stability, I agree with her that Internet does allow people to gain new ideas and become more informative. on the contrary, it also gives people the unguided liberty to say or do anything which may also include extreme ideas. Such a serious problem resulting from this is radicalisation. Increasingly, people are becoming more attached to the idea of joining such groups because of the higher education people have received and feel that it is right to be radical in their own ways.
In conclusion, people need to be aware of their surroundings and make the rational choices instead of being easily swayed or influenced by their contemporaries.
Even though the Internet free press is becoming incredible, I can't say much for the traditional media-newspapers. They carry a majority of reporting news yet they many a time failed us. Such an example is depicted in a documentary-Buying the War by Bill Moyers exposing how reporters at newspapers such as the Washington Post deferred to the wishes of the Bush administration or were made to do so many other underhand methods. It's really pathetic to see how the press succumb to the government through such ways.
Then again as we go along the route of free press, it seems that it has been abused by radicals to express their extremists' views in the fastest way possible. Recently in Singapore, radicals have been caught and jailed for manifesting their radical ideas in their through word of mouth. With the efficient counter-terrorism efforts, extremist group has been roadblocked and their only way to continue their "mission" of spreading radical thoughts is through individuals which also makes it very hard to catch? With so many people in a country even in a small one like Singapore, how efficient can the police? Perhaps, at the end of the day, we can control freedom of expression to a certain extent. it's certain to stay and that's a fact no one will be to deny because will allow their rights to anyone for it's one of the basic human rights.
With response to chee ying's article-New media-Power of people or threat to stability, I agree with her that Internet does allow people to gain new ideas and become more informative. on the contrary, it also gives people the unguided liberty to say or do anything which may also include extreme ideas. Such a serious problem resulting from this is radicalisation. Increasingly, people are becoming more attached to the idea of joining such groups because of the higher education people have received and feel that it is right to be radical in their own ways.
In conclusion, people need to be aware of their surroundings and make the rational choices instead of being easily swayed or influenced by their contemporaries.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
New Media- Power to the people or Threat to stability
The new media, mainly the access to internet, has both pros and cons to it. On one hand, it helps in the spread of personal ideas without any censorship and the access of other people ideas. Yet on the other hand, personal views are mostly one sided and when the reader is unable to discern between facts and ideology, it may result in the increasing threat to social stability. In my opinion, the new media open the door to freedom of speech and as a result, radicalised views may threaten social stability.
The main benefit of the internet is that it allows for a free flow of ideas and information. With blogspot as a common host site for blogs and youtube for video clips, a person’s view can be easily posted on the internet, people with different views can also argue their point through the same media. The exchange of information is beneficial to the community as we will be able to understand what others views are. Untruth reporting on the internet will also be corrected immediately by other user.
However, with this freedom, there will be many other negative impacts too. The most major pitfall of new media is the threat to stability. On the internet, with the freedom to do and say anything, people with controversial views can also gather together on the internet. Hey may also succeed in convincing and converting others to believe in their views. Within a group of people with similar thoughts, their ideas may get more and more extreme. When their ideas spill over to the general public, conflict between the different groups may occur.
Self radicalisation is a major problem. With extreme Islamic views spread online, many delusionalised people are turning to the extremists views. The people convinced to join the growing racks of self radicalized people are not just the less educated. Instead, even highly educated people like the lawyer is convinced to join there cause. The lack Of policing in the internet allows for the radical views to be placed online for easy access. Besides, the self radicalized people are also harder to identify unless they take action but by than, it will be too late.
Therefore, the new media can be either beneficial or harmful depending on the usage of it.
Chee Ying
The main benefit of the internet is that it allows for a free flow of ideas and information. With blogspot as a common host site for blogs and youtube for video clips, a person’s view can be easily posted on the internet, people with different views can also argue their point through the same media. The exchange of information is beneficial to the community as we will be able to understand what others views are. Untruth reporting on the internet will also be corrected immediately by other user.
However, with this freedom, there will be many other negative impacts too. The most major pitfall of new media is the threat to stability. On the internet, with the freedom to do and say anything, people with controversial views can also gather together on the internet. Hey may also succeed in convincing and converting others to believe in their views. Within a group of people with similar thoughts, their ideas may get more and more extreme. When their ideas spill over to the general public, conflict between the different groups may occur.
Self radicalisation is a major problem. With extreme Islamic views spread online, many delusionalised people are turning to the extremists views. The people convinced to join the growing racks of self radicalized people are not just the less educated. Instead, even highly educated people like the lawyer is convinced to join there cause. The lack Of policing in the internet allows for the radical views to be placed online for easy access. Besides, the self radicalized people are also harder to identify unless they take action but by than, it will be too late.
Therefore, the new media can be either beneficial or harmful depending on the usage of it.
Chee Ying
Saturday, April 5, 2008
KTICHEN CHEMISTRY
I agree that scientific technology is becoming a great ‘helping-hand’ to the group of people that are having difficulties in mastering how to cook a delicious meal. Having realized that ‘placing food over heat is science, not art’, many others will opt for cook books and purchasing ‘scientific gadgets’ like Crok Pot to make a good meal with its quality guaranteed. Fewer people will think that cooking good food is a work of art or effort, as ‘prepared dishes at supermarkets, meal-prep kitchens and restaurants will get even cheaper’ with fewer people knowing how to cook.
However, I do not agree that science can solve the problem for inexperience ‘cooks’. A standard and constantly update recipe may be able to tell you the exact amount of ingredients to add and the step-by-step method to whip up a good meal, but the real taste of it relies on experience. Although many recipes can now be explained by science, there is a still a vast difference between a heated ‘instant spaghetti’ and a spaghetti experimented by throwing it on the wall.
Technology can help us in many ways, including helping us find the easiest ways to cook. However, experience and ‘kitchen chemistry’ differentiates an experienced cook and a microwave oven. We should not let the ready-made recipes decide the meals we prepare. Instead, we should let the recipes guide us towards preparing a good meal while trying out new stuffs on our own. There is a difference between making medicine and cooking, and any ‘house cooks’ will tell you that cooking is not only about precision.
posted by:Tianhe
However, I do not agree that science can solve the problem for inexperience ‘cooks’. A standard and constantly update recipe may be able to tell you the exact amount of ingredients to add and the step-by-step method to whip up a good meal, but the real taste of it relies on experience. Although many recipes can now be explained by science, there is a still a vast difference between a heated ‘instant spaghetti’ and a spaghetti experimented by throwing it on the wall.
Technology can help us in many ways, including helping us find the easiest ways to cook. However, experience and ‘kitchen chemistry’ differentiates an experienced cook and a microwave oven. We should not let the ready-made recipes decide the meals we prepare. Instead, we should let the recipes guide us towards preparing a good meal while trying out new stuffs on our own. There is a difference between making medicine and cooking, and any ‘house cooks’ will tell you that cooking is not only about precision.
posted by:Tianhe
Geoengineering
Geoengineering has suggested several ideas for reducing global warming such as cutting down on carbon, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth and using orbital mirrors to bounce sunlight back into space and fertilizing the oceans with iron to amplify their ability to absorb carbon. In view of the measures of geoengineering, I feel that they are the right approach to solve the problem. However, I found one measure extremely undesirable- release vast amounts of sulfurous debris into the atmosphere to create a haze that would keep the planet cool. As much as men are desperate for racing against saving the world from global warming, we should not stoop to such measures where we sacrifice the well-being of the people living in Earth. In my opinion, this is a very threatening issue as it is increasingly discussed which means that many are probably attracted by this idea. This leads to a imminent danger as the environment might worsen due to the way of thinking of people.
We should come up with more efficient and safe measures to “cure” global warming such as reducing the amount of fossil fuels such as carbon to be burnt as such sources of fuel leads to self-destruction. With these fuels being burnt, they contribute to producing carbon dioxide in the air which traps heat, thus increasing global warming. Human’s selfishness has led us to such a circumstance after years of accumulating these toxic elements in the air and environment. Humans, especially top officials in large countries (as they are responsible for the people and their actions affect people globally) should take up responsibility to use more “green” methods to curb this problem and stop looking up only to profits for themselves and their countries regardless of the people in Earth. I believe that with cooperation of everyone especially those with authority, we will be able to prevent global warming from worsening and put geoengineering to good use.
We should come up with more efficient and safe measures to “cure” global warming such as reducing the amount of fossil fuels such as carbon to be burnt as such sources of fuel leads to self-destruction. With these fuels being burnt, they contribute to producing carbon dioxide in the air which traps heat, thus increasing global warming. Human’s selfishness has led us to such a circumstance after years of accumulating these toxic elements in the air and environment. Humans, especially top officials in large countries (as they are responsible for the people and their actions affect people globally) should take up responsibility to use more “green” methods to curb this problem and stop looking up only to profits for themselves and their countries regardless of the people in Earth. I believe that with cooperation of everyone especially those with authority, we will be able to prevent global warming from worsening and put geoengineering to good use.
Friday, April 4, 2008
WOMEN POWER!
I agree with the idea of Women’s work featured in the article on 10 ideas that are changing the world. Indeed, due to modernization and developments in the country, the stereotype of women is in need of a makeover. Women’s role in the society today is completely different from what it has been due to a result of modernization. In the past, a women’s role was stereotyped as being a typical housewife that cope themselves with housework and children whom are deprived of social life. Right now, in the world today, women are no longer restricted in such effortless tasks and have stepped out of homes to make a difference. They have proved that their working capabilities are on par with the men, where TIME ‘showed that states in India where women are better educated were also those with higher economic growth rates’.
With this idea of Women’s work brings along gender equality, where the era of gender discrimination has finally come to an end. Women ‘have started their own businesses’ and increased the competitiveness of the working society where ‘skilled businesswomen could boost economic output in Asia and Africa’. The effect of modernization that brought along gender equality is definitely a positive outcome arising from Women’s work, where women have proved that they are equally capable of achieving the same goals as the opposite gender do. With the continued improvement in the rising power of women, gender equality is not impossible. In the future, there may be a switch in the roles between men and women, where men takes on the responsibility of managing the household and the women go out and start on a career. With modernization, anything is possible.
With this idea of Women’s work brings along gender equality, where the era of gender discrimination has finally come to an end. Women ‘have started their own businesses’ and increased the competitiveness of the working society where ‘skilled businesswomen could boost economic output in Asia and Africa’. The effect of modernization that brought along gender equality is definitely a positive outcome arising from Women’s work, where women have proved that they are equally capable of achieving the same goals as the opposite gender do. With the continued improvement in the rising power of women, gender equality is not impossible. In the future, there may be a switch in the roles between men and women, where men takes on the responsibility of managing the household and the women go out and start on a career. With modernization, anything is possible.
The End of Customer Service?
In the past, consumers get serve by service staff. But now, many services are replaced by self –service. It is getting more and more common to help yourself in getting the things that you want with the aid of machines. From supermarket to airports, many are heading to becoming fully self-service.
So, it is beneficial for us? Or does it benefit only the producers? The main benefit of self service is that it helps to cut cost, and the savings can be passed on from the companies to us, the consumers. Imagine how much of money can be saved from cutting down the employment of service staff. Without the usage of human labour, many problems due to human error can also be avoided. Usage of machine will also increase efficiency and it is also less prone to error. It is also easier to provide a standardized service using machines rather than humans. Machines will never lose its temper, always keeping cool and professional.
However, the down side of self service is that there is no one to look to when the machines are unable to help. When there is a problem that is beyond what the machine is able to do, will help be available? Help may not be immediately available.
Although many services may be gone, I believe that there are people who will pay a premium for good services. Not every service will become self service. Customer will still need to be served in hotels, as tour guides and in high end retail services. If given a choice between good customer service and self service most will choose to be served.
In conclusion, I believe that self service is beneficial to both the consumers and the businessman. However, there will still be instances where customer services are expected. Therefore there will not be an end to customer service.
So, it is beneficial for us? Or does it benefit only the producers? The main benefit of self service is that it helps to cut cost, and the savings can be passed on from the companies to us, the consumers. Imagine how much of money can be saved from cutting down the employment of service staff. Without the usage of human labour, many problems due to human error can also be avoided. Usage of machine will also increase efficiency and it is also less prone to error. It is also easier to provide a standardized service using machines rather than humans. Machines will never lose its temper, always keeping cool and professional.
However, the down side of self service is that there is no one to look to when the machines are unable to help. When there is a problem that is beyond what the machine is able to do, will help be available? Help may not be immediately available.
Although many services may be gone, I believe that there are people who will pay a premium for good services. Not every service will become self service. Customer will still need to be served in hotels, as tour guides and in high end retail services. If given a choice between good customer service and self service most will choose to be served.
In conclusion, I believe that self service is beneficial to both the consumers and the businessman. However, there will still be instances where customer services are expected. Therefore there will not be an end to customer service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)