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:)
Friday, June 29, 2007
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!
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
MASS MEDIA-perception or reality?
The article, 'Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq', dated 6 April 2003, gave me much insight as to how the mass media uses different techniques to present information to the general public-be it perception or reality. Following the invasion of the United States into Iraq, the effects that the Iraqi civilians had to face was terrible and the expectation that these civilians would warmly welcome the US troops before the invasion was simply a lie and a fantasy. The arguments that were put across for war were not credible as it ony consisted of a whole string of lies. Even before the invasion, untruths such as France and Germany providing support for the war and the Arab countries willing to follow US and overthrow Saddam were mere lies. Also, a whole lot more lies were told in an effort to justify the war. For example, on the fifth day of the bombing campaign, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, accused Iraq of planning to use chemical weapons just because accusations of them doing something similar were brought up in the1980s. Also, another US official blamed the Iraqis for planning to dress up as the US soldiers to attack civilians and then turn around and blame the invading forces. However, this accusation was not real as well, proving that the US official's mentalities were changed due to perception and not what was actually happening. Then, the next day, some other US officials claimed that the US prisoners of war(PoWs) were being executed and shot in front of the entire town, thus deproving their relationship with Iraq. All these claims were made without sufficient supporting evidence, therefore once again proving that facts can be changed due to different mindsets and biased attitudes toward a certain group of people, in this case between the US and the Iraqi civilians. As the war dragged on, Tony Blair rushed to Washington for supposed "crisis talks" that contained topics unrelated to a crisis at all. The mass media did not present the real facts, but instead were very 'obliging' and catered to the image of Tony Blair, so that the public would not think of him in a bad light. Being the media, they said that the "purpose was to plan the funding for post-war reconstruction" when other notable leaders had already finished their discussion on the same topic. So, here we see how the media can hide the truth and change it to make it look like the way they perceive it!
All in all, the mass media is a really persuasive tool through which ideas are being generated to the public. Being such an effective medium through which we tend to believe almost everything we see and hear, they know how to manipulate our minds into thinking what they want us to think and that is the ultimate power of the mass media.
What the public needs to learn is how to differentiate between perception and reality.
All in all, the mass media is a really persuasive tool through which ideas are being generated to the public. Being such an effective medium through which we tend to believe almost everything we see and hear, they know how to manipulate our minds into thinking what they want us to think and that is the ultimate power of the mass media.
What the public needs to learn is how to differentiate between perception and reality.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Hi everybody!(assuming there is anyone who is reading this blog..)
My very first post on my new GP blog! This first post will not be about newspaper articles and how i feel. That will come later on, probably next month or so. Well, the reason why i set up this blog is because my GP tutor said we all needed a GP blog so as to voice out our opinions on various issues that we read in the newspaper. Supposedly, this will provide us with more background information about a certain theme or topic. I really hope it helps me in GP! It is quite a change to blog my thoughts in full sentences that start with a capital letter and end with a fullstop. Also, not being able to type 'haha' in the middle of two sentences has been a challenge.
Well, i feel that GP is quite an interesting subject. At the moment, it seems as if getting an A is quite impossible. But, i believe that GP, a subject that we deem impossible to get an A for, can be aced through sheer hard work, perseverance, a whole lot of reading and paraphrasing.
It's time for me to go now!
Will post again soon:)
-hugs from gwen
My very first post on my new GP blog! This first post will not be about newspaper articles and how i feel. That will come later on, probably next month or so. Well, the reason why i set up this blog is because my GP tutor said we all needed a GP blog so as to voice out our opinions on various issues that we read in the newspaper. Supposedly, this will provide us with more background information about a certain theme or topic. I really hope it helps me in GP! It is quite a change to blog my thoughts in full sentences that start with a capital letter and end with a fullstop. Also, not being able to type 'haha' in the middle of two sentences has been a challenge.
Well, i feel that GP is quite an interesting subject. At the moment, it seems as if getting an A is quite impossible. But, i believe that GP, a subject that we deem impossible to get an A for, can be aced through sheer hard work, perseverance, a whole lot of reading and paraphrasing.
It's time for me to go now!
Will post again soon:)
-hugs from gwen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)