GP Blog

2007-09-10T12:02:00.000+08:00

Articles on globalisation and culture

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351719946.html
http://cpim.org/misc/2000_culture_sry.htm
http://phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong18.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n3/globalization.pdf
http://www.planetagora.org/english/theme1.html

Articles on environment and biodiversity, sustainable development

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:NOyB-oRiQtUJ:www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/news-sd-suplement-en.pdf+articles+on+environment+and+biodiversity,+sustainable+development&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&gl=sg
http://www.mongabay.com/news-index/sustainable_development1.html
http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/wp/wp19.pdf

Articles on terrorism and war

http://www.theterrorismarchive.com/Home.aspx

2007-09-03T22:37:00.000+08:00

Blog Task 2 for term 3

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

From dictionary.com, same-sex marriage is defined as two people of the same sex who live together as a family. In my opinion, I feel that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation to a small extent.

Though society has progressed tremendously since the old times, people's mindset has not been so open as to allow same-sex marriage yet. This is proven from http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/international.htm, where out of so many countries on Earth, only 6 regions namely, Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and Massachusetts, a state in United States of America, legalised same-sex marriage. This tells us that most of the world has not yet accepted same-sex marriages, thus same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation to a small extent.

In this age of globalisation, same-sex marriages had been considered by some countries, but majority refused to think about it or worse, in some cases, being homosexual could bring about one's death as from wikipedia, countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen imposed death penalties on homosexuals. It is sad to see this as homosexuals themselves could not help falling for the same gender. Though it may be so, they are being seen as criminals for something that is inborn. Although there may be tolerance from many countries, the mindset being instilled in us from young finds it disturbing, though not menacing. This may be the reason behind why it is not a practical consideration in this modern era.

Furthermore, by legalising same-sex marriages, it may cause a disruption to the ideal family image most people had in their mind, where the fact that they could not give birth to their own children further enhanced the protest we harboured in our mind as we see it as unnatural, to be against nature. This may cause the birth rate of the country to decline as to create a baby, they will have to go for artificial insemination which may be too expensive for most, resulting in futility to create a baby and not adding to the birth statistics in the country. This will result in an aging population, which will be a great concern to any country as the economy and political aspects of the country will be affected. With these disadvantages, it may provide us with yet another reason why same-sex marriage is not a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

In conclusion, I feel that due to the still tradional mentality of the people, the negative effects that will be brought to the countries, even if the world has progressed, they will not be so open yet to accept and legalised same-sex marriage, with the exception of a few countries, thus I think that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation to a small extent.

2007-08-12T21:27:00.000+08:00

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

According to dictionary.com, revolution is defined as a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point. Crime is any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin and poverty is the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence. In my opinion, I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty.

As people fell into poverty, the crime rate will inrease. In the state of starvation, they could only think of filling their stomachs. However, as there are not enough money to satisfy their basic needs for survival, some will resort to crimes in their desperation. Poverty will bring about a vicious cycle, a revolution that they could never get out from. As globalisation took place, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. As the poor lacked the revenue for a good education, they will not be able to compete with the others in this competitive world. Thus, the lower paying jobs like cleaning, sweeping will end up in their hands. Furthermore, the pay for thes lower paying jobs started dipping. As indicated in the article "S'pore's dirty secret" dated July 28, 2007, the cleaners and labourers' median monthly starting pay fell 30 per cent between 1996 and 2006 - from $860 to $600. Besides from a statement by cleaner Madam Aishah, she has had not a pay rise in two years.

On the other hand, in the last 10 years, the starting salaries of all occupational groups rose, except the cleaners and labourers. Other jobs such as aircraft loaders' pay rose with experience, but this does not apply to cleaners. Due to these circumstances, it is no wonder that the poor could never be able to break out of the revolution of poverty. Thus with no good education, not enough food and money to tide them through, the resentment against the rich, the unfairness felt, crime is the other alternative as crime thrives on desperation, anger. Even for those with integrity, they may just resort to stealing for an attempt to survive.
There are other factors that contributed to crime like peer influence. However I felt that they do not really contribute to revolution as peer influence is only short term. I believe that after being caught once or as one gets older, he will have a more mature thinking and be able to differentiate right and wrong. It does not really contribute to revolution as for peer influence, it all comes down to a matter of choices. If you really want to get out of crime, you can. But for poverty, it is not within our control.

For other factors such as violence, lust, greed that are the roots to crime, I felt that all these are all within one's control. They are not essential as they could be do without, without causing any trouble or uncomfort to the person. It is a matter of the person's will, as doing without will not cause their death unlike lack of food and water, which is the result of poverty.

In conclusion, I feel that poverty is the mother of revolution and crime as poverty is not within our control as it is nearly impossible to get out of it due to class divide, thus leading to revolution. As poverty will cause lack of basic survival needs such as food and water, crime will be resorted to gain their survival, thus i agree to a large extent.

2007-08-06T11:53:00.000+08:00

Other types of discrimination

Lookism

Defination: Discrimination or prejudice against people based on their appearance.

Articles:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={6141A41C-FA23-43F9-B7F6-05A1930FE619}

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2007/03/05/kariknutson/0304kari.txt

Ageism

Defination: Discrimination based on age, especially prejudice against the elderly.

Articles: http://www.aoa.gov/prof/notes/Docs/Ageism.pdf

Disablism

Defination: inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.

Articles: http://www.scope.org.uk/disablism/

Xenophobia

Defination: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

Articles: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/immigrants.ruling/index.html?iref=newssearch

2007-07-04T22:39:00.000+08:00

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Freedom of expression is the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, according to dictionary.com. On this topic, there will surely be opposing sides to this idea as their beliefs clashed.

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. As in the case of David Irving, his denial of the holocaust caused him to be imprisoned, which Singer believes that he should be released to uphold the idea of freedom of expression. He believes that for humans to progress further, freedom of expression is a must in democratic countries, whereby people are free to challenge the beliefs of other religions. I support his view that freedom of expression to a certain extent as I feel that freedom of expression is needed for the country to progress, as the public could voice their views about the way the government is run, as in the pros and cons, and thus helping the government to improve and to cater to public needs, with it, the country could progress further when government and public comes to an understanding.

In a different view from Singer, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He believes that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another, and thus the media needs to constantly review the articles and filter them. He believes that the media should not publish those which will spark the anger of races, country, religions, regardless of the freedom of expression. I agree as social responsibility is essential for peace to prevail. Nobody could stop the articles from coming in the hope to be published, however the media has the power to stop it from being published. The media should has social responsibility as to take care of the feelings of the people as a whole, not exposing racist or discrimination remarks to them, igniting their rage. Who cares about freedom of expression if chaos resulting from this breaks out? They will not even has the time to care as their only focus will be running for their lives.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Though Singer's view has its own merits as freedom of expression is needed for the country to progress, I feel that freedom of expression should be limited. As Singapore is a multi-racial society, it will mean that racial issues will be sensitive. The evidence is that in september 2005, 2 chinese bloggers post anti-Muslim remarks and expletives laden comments against Malays and Muslims which he parodied the 'halal' logo and placed it beside a pig head in response to a Malay Muslim comment about transporting uncaged dogs in taxis in the Straits Times. This triggered off widespread comments involving the slinging of racial slurs between Malays and Chinese. One entry among thousands of entries in blogs, one should find it difficult to be discovered. However it is being taken out and used as evidence against the 2 chinese. Such sensitive issues should not even be touched in the first place. Once it is touched, there will always remain a sense of distrust amongs the races. As Singapore main resource is man, if there is discord among men and thus caused riots to break out, Singapore will fall from internal strife. Therefore, it is very important to safekeep the harmony now enjoyed by Singaporeans and to be able to do this, freedom of expression should be limited and more focus should be placed on social responsibility whereby media could double checked the contents of the articles and discard those which will cause possible threats to the existing harmony.

In conclusion, as I find that freedom of expression could be carried out in expressing opinions of the way the country is run, ideas for improvement, however when it comes to issues that will lead to threats to the country's safety it should be denied. Thus come the social responsibility where the media will filter the contents of articles, which is very important as an racist article goes undetected into the newspaper may just spark off the start of racial riots. Thus I feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted as Singer's view is not suited for a multi-racial society such as in Singapore.

2007-04-29T22:05:00.000+08:00

Task 3

"The Death Penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

Is death penalty a way to atone for the crimes of the murderer? If we called a person who killed another a murderer, what about those who carried out the death penalty? What gives them the right to be above all and kill another person, the law or justice? Isn't that another murder carried out, only this time, it is approved under justice? Does that makes it right? Personally, I do not think so.

I feel that death penalty may be a deterrent to a small extent as by carrying it out, it will strike fear in some people, thus making them think twice before committing a crime. It will also serve as a condolence to the victim's family and to let them feel safe once again, as the object of danger to them is removed from the surface of the earth.

However, even though it will prevent some from committing crimes, it could not prevent others. Even with these death penalties going on, people are still committing crimes. Why? This proves that death penalty is only a deterrent to a small extent. Besides, cases where innocents are mistaken for murderers and being put to death is an injustice done, a murder carried out. When they found out their mistake, it is all too late, the innocent could not be brought to life again. But, in the case where no death penalties are carried out, but imprisonment, there will be a chance where the innocent could be set free and resume his life once more.

Some people may argue that death penalty is quick and cause less suffering than a long jail term, but is denying a life really a better choice than life imprisonment? Moreover, it is not true that there is less suffering in that aspect. Deliberately being made to die in any way will cause pain and it may be worsened if it is against the criminal's wishes. Victim's families may want revenge on the murderer and want him to suffer the same fate as the victim, but can they really watch in cold blood at the execution carried out right before their eyes?

Furthermore, executions are carried out in cruel forms like electric chair where the criminal is strapped on the chair and he will be jolt by electricity multiple times before he dies, depending on his resistance to it. There are also executions that have gone wrong for example on June 8, 2000...Florida. The lethal injection took execution technicians 33 minutes to find suitable veins for the execution. "They butchered me back there," said Demps in his final statement. "I was in a lot of pain. They cut me in the groin; they cut me in the leg. I was bleeding profusely. This is not an execution, it is murder." The executioners had no unusual problems finding one vein, but because Florida protocol requires a second alternate intravenous drip, they continued to work to insert another needle, finally abandoning the effort after their prolonged failures. Isn't this pure murder, with the criminal thinking that he will be dead within minutes, yet has to wait in pure pain, suffering both mentally and physically before he cease breathing.

I feel that doing away with death penalty is better as there is no better way than life imprisonment with caning to ponder over all the crimes that they did. In this way, most will feel guilty all their life and I feel it is a more fitting punishment. Taxplayers like us provide for their meals but these could be repayed by making them do some labour like building and repairing. It beats putting people to death against their wishes and in unsightly forms.

In conclusion, I feel that murder is to take away other people's life which applies to executioners under the law too. In any cases, denying people to live is morally wrong and to me, murder. Besides death penalty is cruel and may result in injustice done like error during executions or executing innocents which will become plain murder. Thus I agree that death penalty is not a deterrent but murder.

2007-04-28T22:38:00.000+08:00

I have thought about this topic for a long while now.. since I am in pimary school ba.. so now i am going to list down the pros and cons of being short. I am going to write for fun and the question I am going to ask myself is, " Is being short good or bad?"

Height varies for people, and I feel it's fated in the maximum height you will grow to, though some factors may affect it, like genes.

For me, I am short for my age all my life, starting from the day I was born. I feel that it should be due to genes as I am short in my early years where I got eat vegetables. Sadly, as I grow up, I cease to eat vegetables as I find them repeling to my tastebuds, though I can force myself to eat if I want to. I won't go into digging out all the reasons that contribute to the shortness but will go straight on to the pros and cons.

Personally, I feel that being short can be quite advantageous as one can easily hide herself if she did not want to be found or seen. Short people can also reach places where a normal person could not like hmm a cave with a low ceiling, which reminds me, short person will not have to bother about knocking his head against ceilings or suspended objects. It will also help to lessen the burden on the heart as being short will mean a smaller body, thus less work will be done my the heart in pumping the blood for circulation in body.

Furthermore, people will mistake you for a primary school kid where you can pay less at seoul garde or what unless you are stupid enough to confess to the counter person, like me. Being short will enable you to survive longer than others if you are trapped on an island with the same amount of food each. This is because you will need lesser food for your stomach to be satisfied, thus the food can last you for longer period of time. Besides, you will spend less money on clothes as the only jeans you can wear without altering is at the children's section. Being short also made it more easy to evade people who wants to pat your head as you will have a lesser distance to move yourself as compared to an average person. Short people will also get a good view or do not have to worry about your head being blocked by others as you will get front seats during photo-taking. Besides, you will get a greater sense of achievement and satisfaction when you stand beside someone shorter than you. You will also have a better balance as gravity acts more on you.

However, being short also has its disadvantages. One cannot reach tall places and must crane his neck to speak to taller people. Besides, whenever you want to watch NC16 movies, the counter person will never fail to ask for your card as they do not believe you are 16 years and above. You will also miss out a lot of rides in funfairs or roller coasters as you do not fufill the height requirements. As you see shorter people shoot up taller than you as years pass by, you will also feel a sense of sadness.

Short people have to do double work of average people as their legs are shorter, thus have to generate more energy to catch up wif them, for example riding a bicycle. As your legs are short, you will get a smaller bicycle, thus its wheels wil be smaller. Therefore, you will lose out on the distance travelled between the big and small bicycle.

In conclusion, I think being short is a good thing to some extent as I feel that since I am short, I will have to like my height as it belongs to me, thus I am convincing myself now, anyway, short is nt that bad, really, though I prefer an average person's height, but everyone knows this type of things could not be changed. So yes, I love being short... ya.. Therefore, being short is good.

2007-04-26T17:30:00.000+08:00

Task 2

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

Censorship is to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. Some people may welcome censorship while others thought it unnecessary and objects to it. I feel that it has both its advantages and disadvantages.

Censorship is necessary as it will help to protect the innocence of children by removing media, articles which are morally wrong, like the using of violence or sex. This will enable the parents to be able to have a peace of mind, knowing that they could let their child watch television freely, and not having to supervise them every minute for fear of letting them see inmoral acts. Without censorship, when children see violence on television, they may be fascinated by it and want to try it out themselves. As media is influential, with the increasing times they see the same acts shown on television, they may think that this is normal and thus resort to violence. This will cause the crime rate to go up and will not benefit both the family and the country. Imagine a world full of violent people, it will be so dangerous as you will not know when you will be injured severely or worse, dead.

Besides, it is necessary to prevent racial issues from arising as without censorship, racist remarks or insults to religions may be shown on media. This will cause outrage amongst those who are being criticised and sparks will fly. In worst case scenarios, racial riots may break out. As race, religion issues are very sensitive, once they are touched, things may never be the same again, depending on the severity. This will cause disharmony in the country and society will live in suspicion. It will be difficult to achieve racial harmony once again, affecting the safety and economy of the country.

However, censorship has its disadvantages too. By enforcing it, free speech will be disrupted as if you say something that offends the government, you will be captured by them. This will make people think twice about what they say for fear of being dealt with, thus disrupting the policy of freedom in speech.

Furthermore, we will be deprived of our satisfaction as some parts of movies that are NC16 or M18 that are shown on television will be censored for the sakes of those underaged. This will make an incomplete movie and will cause dissatisfaction as for example, a movie about war, they may think it is too bloody, thus censoring some parts where the action gets exciting, dampening our moods. Censorship like attaching age limits to movies is not welcomed by me and is a bit useless as I think that it is depriving me of watching those really exciting or interesting movies in a cinema, forcing me to ask my siblings to buy the vcds of the shows so that I can watch at home. First, it is a waste of time as I will need to wait for the vcds to come out. Second, it is not as exciting as watching it on a big screen. So what's the use of attaching these limits when ultimately, I will still watch it in the end. Besides I feel that it is depriving us of our rights as we could self censored the things we see.

In conclusion, I feel that censorship is necessary to a big extent, to prevent sensitive issues from being provoked and to keep the country in check. Order is very important in a country and this can be achieved through censorship. If a county falls due to disharmony, we would not even have the chance to live there, let alone watch any shows or speak aloud.

2007-04-22T00:06:00.000+08:00

Task 1

I have learnt that media is a very influential tool as it can easily made people believe anything that are being portrayed out, unless one already knows the full story of it. This can be proven by this article, namely "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq".

Basically, as I do not know the true story of it before reading this article, I had always thought that the US was the 'good guy' as through all those shows, newspapers, documentaries that I have seen, US was a kind country who will reach out to the other smaller countries. Gradually through time, this idea has been sort of imprinted into my mind, and my concept became, US is always the good guy. However, this opinion that I had formed was shattered after I found out through this article that the 'bad guy' was actually US. Furthermore, they had made use of creative untruths to cover up for the reason they are fighting Iraq. The evidences are, " yet the US oil industry has been an early and enthusastic was supporter" and "Even Henry Kissinger has been credited with noting that Gulf oil is too important a commodity to be left to Arab control." This clearly shows us that US coveted after the oil in Iraq, which may be the main reason why they are fighting against Iraq instead of the excuses that they fabricated for themselves.

If I do not know the actual happenings behind scenes, I may become one of the supporters for US as they seem like they are fighting for the sake of us, bringing a halt to the dangerous activities that the Iraq are accused of carrying out. This is how powerful the media is, the ability to change a person's mind to suit its purposes.

In conclusion, I feel that there are always two sides to a coin. One could not just see things from one's perspective and jump straight to a conclusion, as it may not give you the truth. One should not be opinionated as this would hinder the path to getting to the truth and media should not be believed totally, as most of them are not entirely true. Form your opinions out of facts that you could get your hands on will be for the best.

2007-03-25T18:12:00.000+08:00

Hello, my name is Katherine Phang as you can see in the "MOI" category. I am currently in class 23/07. For the past four years, I am studying in my beloved secondary school - Swiss Cottage, the only true choice of my heart.. Why did i choose that school in the first place when I did not even know where is it? Basically, I just like the sound of the name... Swiss~ reminds me of chocolates...It sounds like a nice place, so well I just put it into one of my choices. I had a teacher there whom I admired a lot -Mr Kamal. He was the one who triggered my interest in history, and make the lessons fun and interesting. His stories will make you so engrossed that you will listen to him attentively, not missing even a second of it. Because of him, I managed to get distinctions for S.S and pure history. It was really a blessing to be able to get him as my history teacher. Anyway, if you all have the time, just go to my links and click on the 4E2 class video.. =) Its the champion video at our graduation tea okay? So just watch it. Continue from where i just left off...My most treasured memories during the four years was actually during CCA - St. Johns Ambulance Brigade. In there, I learnt the importance of teamwork and it was also there that i had befriended friends that had gone through thick and thin with me. But because of some events that happened, some of my memories were tarnished. I shall not elaborate on more.

Anyway, as you can infer from my blogskin, I am an anime lover. I could not resist the temptation of watching them, perhaps its another haven for me. How nice if I can live in those worlds out there in those animes, but it is impossible. So well, I just had to make do with living in this world, a world full of pollutions and conflicts. I had been trying to learn Japanese but to no avail. Haha it is quite hard. I shall try learning it once more when I feel like it. I like to daydream, imagine and gaze at stars. I find the clouds in the sky interesting as from different people perspectives, the clouds may form into different objects, like dragons, rabbits and etc. It is up to our imagination. I like to be alone in my room, rather than going out. It is difficult to get time to yourself with this hectic lifestyle going on. I will never (most probably) share my deepest feelings and thoughts with people and when i say deepest, it is really those that are deep down inside, where no one but me can reach it. I simply hates crowded places and horror movies. What is the point of paying money just to have you afraid of going to the washroom at night? All in all, I find life quite interesting and will try my best to live it.