Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
The dawn of the new age of globalisation has led to the emergence of new practices and beliefs; some of which might seek to topple traditional and cultural norms. Globalisation has also facilitated the movement of ideas and beliefs across transnational boundaries, making the world that much more integrated. Now, even the western culture has made its way into Singapore, bringing with it the idea of homosexuality and same-sex marriages. However, is this new breed of same-sex unions a practical consideration in such a conservative nation like Singapore?
In Singapore, homosexuality seems to be a taboo topic for many. Some netizens are already disgusted at the mention of the words 'gay' and 'lesbian', what more 'same-sex marriages'? This just further emphasises the narrow-minded attitudes that stems from the conventional beliefs adopted from the past. As our world changes, maybe it is also time for us to change and adopt a more open mindset toward the idea of homosexual marriages.
In the world, many nations have started to allow same-gender marriages, on the basis that two people of the same sex can fulfil the same duties and responsibilities that heterosexual parents have to face. On 1 April 2001, the Netherlands were the first nation in the world to accept same-sex marriages. Like many other homosexual relationships and marriages , this new ruling came with its fair share of opposition and critique.
From the perspective of religious groups and conservatives with staunch religious beliefs, gender-neutral marriages were seen to oppose biblical teachings. It also went against the very essence of God's will, which was for a man and woman to share a holy union, and thereafter, procreate. In modern times, many would support this stand and how marriages are meant to be carried out between two people of the opposite sex. However, religious groups who are more liberal and open-minded would not try and impose their own beliefs on others who are more secular.
Though regarded as a sin in the eyes of the religious groups, it is ultimately up to the homosexual couple to think about the responsibilities they have to bear, as well as the effects of their actions. Today, the world we live in allows for freedom of choice, and this definitely applies to same-sex couples who are deciding to get married.
However, upon deciding to get married, one would be concerned about how children of homosexual couples are going to be treated in school and society. The possibility of these children being discriminated against is high. Do they really deserve to be treated in this manner? We cannot put the blame on the children for having parents who happen to be of the same gender. This would be an unfair judgment of the child as they did not 'choose' to be part of a family that resulted from a same-gender marriage.
When considering the practicality of a same-sex marriage, the first thing that comes to mind would be the responsibilities and moral obligations that all parents have to face in the setting up of a family. Firstly, the basic neccessities such as food, money, shelter and clothing have to be taken care of. Then, the parents, be they of opposite genders or homosexuals, have to ensure that they are able to provide love, care and attention for the children. In future, when the children are all grown up, will they be able to cope with the idea of having two parents of the same sex? Also, same-sex marriages would encourage homosexuals to settle down with just one partner and start a family of their own, instead of leading a promiscuous lifestyle. The promiscuous attitudes of homosexuals are cultivated when they face rejection from society; when their only option of gaining happiness is snatched away all because society refuses to budge from past values and morals.
In determining if same-sex marriages are practical considerations in this age of globalisation, we have to explore the capabilities of parents with the same gender, and whether they are able to juggle the same obligations and duties as parents of nuclear families. We cannot simply judge homosexual couples based on our own thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong. Sexual orientations that deem certain people as being homosexual is not a choice, but rather something they have to live with. Different homosexuals deal with it differently, and some choose to live life to the fullest by pursuing a family life with a fellow homosexual. Who are we then to deprive these people of their source of happiness?
Though our past traditions have never condoned the act of homosexuality and same-sex unions, disallowing same-sex unions would lead some homosexuals back to the promiscuous lifestyle that is far worse than letting them settle down with a partner of the same gender. Thus, same-sex marriages should be considered as a practical alternative to heterosexual marriages to a certain extent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
TERM 3 blog task:)
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty".(Aristotle)
Do you agree?
Poverty, a state that people are reduced to when they are poor and when they cannot satisfy their own basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and education. Has revolution and crime stemmed from this pertinent problem of poverty?
Revolution, according to Wiktionary, is defined as a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. This could very well effect major changes in the culture or economy of a country. Crime, on the other hand, is being defined as an act committed in violation of the law. How then does poverty, play a role in shaping one's culture through a big change, or make one commit a crime?
The statement that poverty is 'the mother of revolution and crime' suggests that poverty is the main cause for the two effects mentioned. In the economically less developed countries, poverty is a vicious cycle that is hard for the people to break out of. This is mainly because of the little education they receive, which then leads to the people not being able to get a good job. This further results in them receiving low incomes and thus, keeps them stagnant at the bottom of the wealth ladder. Again, with little money, they do not have enough to fund their children's education, and this becomes a poverty cycle of which they have to bear the effects. Starvation, illiteracy, poor hygiene; these are some examples of the effects they have to face, just to name a few. Class divide resulted from poverty due to the widening of the income gap. With the increase in income gaps, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, thus the problem of poverty still remains. With poverty and globalization around, class divisions are bound to appear. As recently said by Mr Lee Hsien Loong in an article,'Singapore raises 2007 growth forecast; PM says income gap poses problems', he addressed that,"Income gaps are widening — here, and all over the world" and that "one of the country's major challenges was to tackle an income disparity that has been widening in recent years as more low-skilled jobs are made redundant by technological advancements". Here, we can see the effects of globalization at work. If poverty is going to remain or get worse due to the increasing pace of globalization, then class discrimination will be a significant change that affects the culture of many developing countries. People will be treated differently according to their different "classes" and this will certainly effect a cultural change in any one economy.
Stating poverty as being the mother of crime is not very appropriate because crime is not solely caused by poverty alone, but rather by a series of factors, such as greed, corruption, or for a certain motive. Poverty catalyses suffering, especially when people can no longer afford their basic needs. This might drive certain impoverished people to crime, such as robberies or theft, so that they can a steal enough money to help them survive. Crime as a cause of poverty only occurs when the people living in poverty have absolutely no way out and have to stoop to such low levels as a means of survival. But with poverty being the 'mother of crime', does this mean that crime rates will decline if people were to become richer and wealthier? There is no directly proportional relationship between poverty and crime, except for the fact that poverty is one of the causes of crime.
Thus, i only agree with Aristotle's statement to a certain extent, where poverty could lead to revolutionary changes and crime, and not that poverty is the mother of revolution and crime. Aristotle's statement is subject to many differing views and opinions, thus no one can determine who is right or wrong in this topic.
http://iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/business/AS-FIN-ECO-Singapore-Economy.php
Do you agree?
Poverty, a state that people are reduced to when they are poor and when they cannot satisfy their own basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and education. Has revolution and crime stemmed from this pertinent problem of poverty?
Revolution, according to Wiktionary, is defined as a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. This could very well effect major changes in the culture or economy of a country. Crime, on the other hand, is being defined as an act committed in violation of the law. How then does poverty, play a role in shaping one's culture through a big change, or make one commit a crime?
The statement that poverty is 'the mother of revolution and crime' suggests that poverty is the main cause for the two effects mentioned. In the economically less developed countries, poverty is a vicious cycle that is hard for the people to break out of. This is mainly because of the little education they receive, which then leads to the people not being able to get a good job. This further results in them receiving low incomes and thus, keeps them stagnant at the bottom of the wealth ladder. Again, with little money, they do not have enough to fund their children's education, and this becomes a poverty cycle of which they have to bear the effects. Starvation, illiteracy, poor hygiene; these are some examples of the effects they have to face, just to name a few. Class divide resulted from poverty due to the widening of the income gap. With the increase in income gaps, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, thus the problem of poverty still remains. With poverty and globalization around, class divisions are bound to appear. As recently said by Mr Lee Hsien Loong in an article,'Singapore raises 2007 growth forecast; PM says income gap poses problems', he addressed that,"Income gaps are widening — here, and all over the world" and that "one of the country's major challenges was to tackle an income disparity that has been widening in recent years as more low-skilled jobs are made redundant by technological advancements". Here, we can see the effects of globalization at work. If poverty is going to remain or get worse due to the increasing pace of globalization, then class discrimination will be a significant change that affects the culture of many developing countries. People will be treated differently according to their different "classes" and this will certainly effect a cultural change in any one economy.
Stating poverty as being the mother of crime is not very appropriate because crime is not solely caused by poverty alone, but rather by a series of factors, such as greed, corruption, or for a certain motive. Poverty catalyses suffering, especially when people can no longer afford their basic needs. This might drive certain impoverished people to crime, such as robberies or theft, so that they can a steal enough money to help them survive. Crime as a cause of poverty only occurs when the people living in poverty have absolutely no way out and have to stoop to such low levels as a means of survival. But with poverty being the 'mother of crime', does this mean that crime rates will decline if people were to become richer and wealthier? There is no directly proportional relationship between poverty and crime, except for the fact that poverty is one of the causes of crime.
Thus, i only agree with Aristotle's statement to a certain extent, where poverty could lead to revolutionary changes and crime, and not that poverty is the mother of revolution and crime. Aristotle's statement is subject to many differing views and opinions, thus no one can determine who is right or wrong in this topic.
http://iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/business/AS-FIN-ECO-Singapore-Economy.php
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Other Forms of Discrimination-Lookism, Ageism, Disablism, Xenophobia.
Lookism, Ageism, Disablism and Xenophobia!
These are some of the other forms of discrimination that we don't usually take note of.
Lookism - act of discrimination or prejudice against people based on their appearance.
Related articles:
- http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=19836&pid=1154
- http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html
- http://herald.cau.ac.kr/news/read.php?idxno=148
Ageism - act of discrimination based on one's age;especially when there is prejudice against the old.
Related articles:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4041713.stm
-http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/060904_index.shtml
Disablism -
Related articles:
-http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1932280.htm
-http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1933
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2138455,00.html
Xenophobia - fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.
Related articles:
-http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7417
-http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/863/
These are some of the other forms of discrimination that we don't usually take note of.
Lookism - act of discrimination or prejudice against people based on their appearance.
Related articles:
- http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=19836&pid=1154
- http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html
- http://herald.cau.ac.kr/news/read.php?idxno=148
Ageism - act of discrimination based on one's age;especially when there is prejudice against the old.
Related articles:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4041713.stm
-http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/columnists/tom/060904_index.shtml
Disablism -
Related articles:
-http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1932280.htm
-http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1933
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2138455,00.html
Xenophobia - fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.
Related articles:
-http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7417
-http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/863/
Friday, June 29, 2007
june holiday blog task.
In a country where many races and religions exist, Singapore has to adopt Szilagyi's view of social responsibility. Singer's view of freedom of expression is not practical in our overly sheltered country where many Singaporeans are conservative and not daring in expressing what they really think. When David Irving denied the existence of the Holocaust, it caused much outrage and uproar in Austria, thus causing him to be convicted and imprisoned. Seeing that freedom of expression has such negative effects, social responsibility as stated by Szilagyi is better in preventing racial riots and cultural or religious mockery.
Though Singer's viewpoint will allow the people of a country to understand other people and races better through the different issues and feelings brought up, the lack of control of speech might result in unwanted chaos. This might then disrupt the initial peace of a country. In Singapore, where we are just a small and vulnerable country, we cannot afford to have racial or religious conflicts and disagreements. The tension gained from these disagreements will be enough to cause the downfall of Singapore. If we look back at history, we would know that there was once a period of many racial riots, for example, the Maria Hertogh riots, where race was pretty much the main factor that led to the riots. The disagreements about who was to gain custody of Maria stirred up some unhappy feelings and led to the race riots in Singapore then. If Singer's views are supported now, will it cause as much uproar as it did in the past? If it will, then it is not at all beneficial to the progress and harmony of our nation.
Therefore, we should take a more responsible approach to maintaining the cultural and religious harmony in Singapore and support Szilagyi's view. For the welfare of the people in a country, freedom of speech has to be highly controlled, if not, the consequences might be as disastrous as the effects of the release of cartoons in a Danish newspaper that mocked the Prophet Muhammad. The 'mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts' following the saga was unintentional and not expected to happen by the Danish and Norwegian newspaper publishers. They only wanted to 'make a statement about the extensive self-censorship that has developed within news media..', but ended up with a bad taste in the mouth. This clearly shows that a 'no holds barred' attitude does not work out in our society today, thus the need for censorship arises. Especially the mass media, which has the capability of sending information all around the world. It is the medium that has to be constantly reviewed with the changing news and events. I especially agree with Szilagyi's view that 'freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world'. The importance of censors and restriction on freedom of speech is essential for any democracy to function with integrity and responsibility.
Thus, i believe that Szilagyi's viewpoint should be the correct view to adopt in our ever-changing, multicultural, multiracial and cosmopolitan sunny island, Singapore:)
Though Singer's viewpoint will allow the people of a country to understand other people and races better through the different issues and feelings brought up, the lack of control of speech might result in unwanted chaos. This might then disrupt the initial peace of a country. In Singapore, where we are just a small and vulnerable country, we cannot afford to have racial or religious conflicts and disagreements. The tension gained from these disagreements will be enough to cause the downfall of Singapore. If we look back at history, we would know that there was once a period of many racial riots, for example, the Maria Hertogh riots, where race was pretty much the main factor that led to the riots. The disagreements about who was to gain custody of Maria stirred up some unhappy feelings and led to the race riots in Singapore then. If Singer's views are supported now, will it cause as much uproar as it did in the past? If it will, then it is not at all beneficial to the progress and harmony of our nation.
Therefore, we should take a more responsible approach to maintaining the cultural and religious harmony in Singapore and support Szilagyi's view. For the welfare of the people in a country, freedom of speech has to be highly controlled, if not, the consequences might be as disastrous as the effects of the release of cartoons in a Danish newspaper that mocked the Prophet Muhammad. The 'mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts' following the saga was unintentional and not expected to happen by the Danish and Norwegian newspaper publishers. They only wanted to 'make a statement about the extensive self-censorship that has developed within news media..', but ended up with a bad taste in the mouth. This clearly shows that a 'no holds barred' attitude does not work out in our society today, thus the need for censorship arises. Especially the mass media, which has the capability of sending information all around the world. It is the medium that has to be constantly reviewed with the changing news and events. I especially agree with Szilagyi's view that 'freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world'. The importance of censors and restriction on freedom of speech is essential for any democracy to function with integrity and responsibility.
Thus, i believe that Szilagyi's viewpoint should be the correct view to adopt in our ever-changing, multicultural, multiracial and cosmopolitan sunny island, Singapore:)
Monday, May 14, 2007
Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia: a positive action is taken to bring about someone’s death e.g. the administering of a deadly injection or the assisting in preparations for a suicide
Passive Euthanasia: involves a refusal to intervene to change the course of events, where the result is the death of the person e.g. the refusal to treat or the withdrawal of lifesaving treatment
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.
Pro-choice vs Pro-life
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights[11] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.
Ritual suicide is the act of suicide motivated by a religious, spiritual, or traditional ritual.
An extreme interpretation of Hindu custom historically practiced, mostly in the 2nd millennium, was self-immolation by a widow as an assurance that she will be with her husband for the next life. Other rituals of self-immolation or self-starvation were used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks for religious or philosophical purposes, or as a form of extreme non-violent protest. In China, some groups would practice suicide for similar reasons. In Japan, rituals of suicide like seppuku were practiced.
Active Euthanasia: a positive action is taken to bring about someone’s death e.g. the administering of a deadly injection or the assisting in preparations for a suicide
Passive Euthanasia: involves a refusal to intervene to change the course of events, where the result is the death of the person e.g. the refusal to treat or the withdrawal of lifesaving treatment
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.
Pro-choice vs Pro-life
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights[11] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.
Ritual suicide is the act of suicide motivated by a religious, spiritual, or traditional ritual.
An extreme interpretation of Hindu custom historically practiced, mostly in the 2nd millennium, was self-immolation by a widow as an assurance that she will be with her husband for the next life. Other rituals of self-immolation or self-starvation were used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks for religious or philosophical purposes, or as a form of extreme non-violent protest. In China, some groups would practice suicide for similar reasons. In Japan, rituals of suicide like seppuku were practiced.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
DEATH PENALTY *_* -a deterrent or pure murder?
The DEATH PENALTY, the one thing that all criminals fear. In today's society, the death penalty is what you deserve when you commit a crime, especially when you have taken someone else's life for your own benefit. At the top of the capital punishment crime list lies first degree murder, followed by a trail of other terrible crimes, including drug trafficking, terrorist activities and treason. All these crimes usually threatens national security, and so they have to be dealt with severely.
In Singapore, there are various ways of executing the criminal. For example, the most common methods are hanging and electrocuting them in an electric chair. I feel that for first degree murder, the crime is too severe to be dealt with lightly. If other people were to know that murderers are just sent through rehabilitation, this might encourage copycat crimes, because other convicts are not afraid of the consequences.
But is the death penalty the right choice for dealing with a convict? Do we really have to take the criminal's life just because he took one? From the deceased family's point of view, they would agree that the convict deserves the death penalty. But is this a case of justice or revenge? Humans are not very rational, especially at a time when their loved one has just been murdered by a criminal, and they are filled with rage and sadness. Thus, a third party, like a judge, is needed to determine the severity of the crime and if the criminal deserves a second chance.
In my view, i support rehabilitation over capital punishment as i believe in second chances. However, this consequence only applies to certain crimes, like drug trafficking and rape. Crimes like first degree murder, terrorism and treason are too severe! Rehabilitation allows the criminals to reflect over the reason for committing the crime and may help jerk them back into reality. They might be able to experience guilt and sadness for the victim, unless they are really inhumane. After being given this second chance to be "reborn" again, if they don't make the best out of the opportunity given to them, then they will deserve capital punishment if they commit the same offences again.
Will 2 wrongs make a right? What if it doesn't? It will definitely be much too late to turn back time. The methods of execution that we use today are not any less cruel and inhumane than the ones practised in the past. I feel that every person has the right to die peacefully, and not forced to die just like that. Also, a point that was brought up in class was the irreversibility in miscarriages of justice- where it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn innocent people. When a guilty suspect has been executed, there is no chance for it to be undone. So, the law should really consider if a guilty person deserves to be "murdered" or given a second shot at life. All in all, humans really should not play God. Rather, humans should take that first step to give others a second chance. If they were the criminals, i'd expect them to want a second chance too.
Therefore, i am AGAINST the death penalty.
In Singapore, there are various ways of executing the criminal. For example, the most common methods are hanging and electrocuting them in an electric chair. I feel that for first degree murder, the crime is too severe to be dealt with lightly. If other people were to know that murderers are just sent through rehabilitation, this might encourage copycat crimes, because other convicts are not afraid of the consequences.
But is the death penalty the right choice for dealing with a convict? Do we really have to take the criminal's life just because he took one? From the deceased family's point of view, they would agree that the convict deserves the death penalty. But is this a case of justice or revenge? Humans are not very rational, especially at a time when their loved one has just been murdered by a criminal, and they are filled with rage and sadness. Thus, a third party, like a judge, is needed to determine the severity of the crime and if the criminal deserves a second chance.
In my view, i support rehabilitation over capital punishment as i believe in second chances. However, this consequence only applies to certain crimes, like drug trafficking and rape. Crimes like first degree murder, terrorism and treason are too severe! Rehabilitation allows the criminals to reflect over the reason for committing the crime and may help jerk them back into reality. They might be able to experience guilt and sadness for the victim, unless they are really inhumane. After being given this second chance to be "reborn" again, if they don't make the best out of the opportunity given to them, then they will deserve capital punishment if they commit the same offences again.
Will 2 wrongs make a right? What if it doesn't? It will definitely be much too late to turn back time. The methods of execution that we use today are not any less cruel and inhumane than the ones practised in the past. I feel that every person has the right to die peacefully, and not forced to die just like that. Also, a point that was brought up in class was the irreversibility in miscarriages of justice- where it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn innocent people. When a guilty suspect has been executed, there is no chance for it to be undone. So, the law should really consider if a guilty person deserves to be "murdered" or given a second shot at life. All in all, humans really should not play God. Rather, humans should take that first step to give others a second chance. If they were the criminals, i'd expect them to want a second chance too.
Therefore, i am AGAINST the death penalty.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
CENSORSHIP!is it really necessary?
Censorship-what are the merits and demerits and is it really that neccesary?
In my view, there are both sides of a coin to censorship, there are definitely some pros and some cons. However, if we want to have a more open society, then i feel that censorship is not that necessary.
First of all, what is censorship? To me, censorship is like a sift, and it only allows morally correct issues to be sieved through and others to be hidden from the general public. One might ask- where is the freedom that we deserve? I feel that the general public should have a certain amount of freedom, and this includes our right of knowing the truth. If the government and media were to hide some issues and information, then our freedom is lost! In actual fact, less censorship would equate to more learning taking place. If there wasn't a barrier to taboo issues, both students and adults can broaden their horizons on such issues and gain more knowledge in the process. We would be able to handle these topics better as we already have prior knowledge about them. Also, transparency is crucial for people to trust their government. By reducing or taking away censorship, learning about taboo issues would not have to be done behind closed doors anymore. We can be more open and thus accept each other better. In Singapore, the young children and youth are really sheltered, and they are not getting enough exposure to the real world. By removing censorship, we can educate them and demystify certain taboo topics to them while they are still young and innocent. This is to allow them to be better and more knowledgeable people when they are older. By shielding them from topics like sex, religion, race etcetera, they will be ignorant and insensitive towards these issues when they grow up as they have not had enough chances to dicuss about their views and what others think about it. Ignorance is also a bad thing as people will be fearful to talk about these topics. And if they do talk about it, they might say soemthing insensitive and hurt the other party, thus resulting in chaos and paranoia.
Conversely, censorship will provide protection- for the people and for national security. Holding back certain information will definitely prevent conflicts as people will not get insulted so easily. Also, negative influence to children and youths will be prevented. As children and youths watch television very often, they are often affected by what they see or hear on screen. Censorship will thus help to uphold values that the individuals initially believe in.
To me, i feel that censorship is not that necessary. If there is something that the public should not see, it should be explained out in the open and not kept in the dark. This will definitely allow the government to gain trust from the people. If we want transparency, freedom, the right to know the truth and more education, then censorship is really NOT neccesary!
In my view, there are both sides of a coin to censorship, there are definitely some pros and some cons. However, if we want to have a more open society, then i feel that censorship is not that necessary.
First of all, what is censorship? To me, censorship is like a sift, and it only allows morally correct issues to be sieved through and others to be hidden from the general public. One might ask- where is the freedom that we deserve? I feel that the general public should have a certain amount of freedom, and this includes our right of knowing the truth. If the government and media were to hide some issues and information, then our freedom is lost! In actual fact, less censorship would equate to more learning taking place. If there wasn't a barrier to taboo issues, both students and adults can broaden their horizons on such issues and gain more knowledge in the process. We would be able to handle these topics better as we already have prior knowledge about them. Also, transparency is crucial for people to trust their government. By reducing or taking away censorship, learning about taboo issues would not have to be done behind closed doors anymore. We can be more open and thus accept each other better. In Singapore, the young children and youth are really sheltered, and they are not getting enough exposure to the real world. By removing censorship, we can educate them and demystify certain taboo topics to them while they are still young and innocent. This is to allow them to be better and more knowledgeable people when they are older. By shielding them from topics like sex, religion, race etcetera, they will be ignorant and insensitive towards these issues when they grow up as they have not had enough chances to dicuss about their views and what others think about it. Ignorance is also a bad thing as people will be fearful to talk about these topics. And if they do talk about it, they might say soemthing insensitive and hurt the other party, thus resulting in chaos and paranoia.
Conversely, censorship will provide protection- for the people and for national security. Holding back certain information will definitely prevent conflicts as people will not get insulted so easily. Also, negative influence to children and youths will be prevented. As children and youths watch television very often, they are often affected by what they see or hear on screen. Censorship will thus help to uphold values that the individuals initially believe in.
To me, i feel that censorship is not that necessary. If there is something that the public should not see, it should be explained out in the open and not kept in the dark. This will definitely allow the government to gain trust from the people. If we want transparency, freedom, the right to know the truth and more education, then censorship is really NOT neccesary!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)