AJ Basketballers '07/'08 @ TPY Stadium!!!
junnn05 stepped on your garbage at
7/17/2007 09:34:00 PM
|
Firstly, I feels that both aurthors have stated clear reasons as to what approach we should take towards freedom of speech. Now, let's define what we meant by 'freedom of speech'.
Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. It is one of the basic rights in a democracy. The basic rights are the common threads of a democracy. Some democratic nations guarantee it in their constitution or bill of rights. For other nations it has evolved through common law.(Source: www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/hsie/speak/pages/printpages/pglossary.htm) After reading this definition, we must agree that what Singer believed should be correct-that freedom of expression is a right in any democratic country. However, in the context of Singapore, where many different races and religions co-exist together, the rights of expression must be approached with caution. Thus, Szilagyi's argument makes more sense.
Whenever we make a speech, a talk or even a conversation, we must be careful of the words an phrases that we are using. We must be responsible for what we have said because it will not only affect ourselves but also people around us. Think about it, if nobody takes responsibility for what they said, will Singapore maintain as a multiracial society? Will people be able to live together peacefully? What we said might lead to dire consequnces. Race riots might happen every now and then. This not only results in serious casualties but also hinder the country's development. A Chinese man might be unwilling to work under a Muslim man. There might even be distrust amongst employers and employees. Some minority races might not even be able to get jobs. All this resulted due to the fact that people have the rights to criticise others without having to bear the consequences.
With technology so advanced, blogs and availability of posting online videos, people tends to have more varieties of expressing their views which is then viewed by their peers. However, the Internet is freely access to anyone, thus, a Singaporean's blog is accessible to a person in China. Hence, since it is now much more easier to express one's view, we must be even more cautious in what we post online. Because, a slight wrong expression can evoke anger in others. For example, in Singapore, there had been cases of racism comments being posted online. It's not a single case issue, but more than twice. One of the cases involved two men who posted racism comments online. One of the man claimed that he had bad experiences with muslims when he was young. Hence, it resulted in him posting those racism comments online. Despite this, he was still heavily punished. Many people might ask why? He has a reason for his action, so why was he still severely punished? The reason is simple. The punishment of the two men is to send a message across to all Singaporeans that the government values the importance of racial harmony and not take it lightly. The government is also trying to tell all Singporeans that freedom of speech comes with a price-you have to take responsibility for what you said.
Therefore, Szilagyi's point of view of people accounting for what they said and do is relevant to Singapore. The law in the freedom of expression is not restricting us not to express our views, but it is to allow people to be careful of what they said and bear the consequences of what they said. Thus, living in a democratic society should never be an excuse to abuse the rights of freedom of expression.
junnn05 stepped on your garbage at
7/05/2007 12:07:00 AM
|
"To what extent should rich nations help poorer nations?Discuss." Regarding this issue, firstly we must define what do we mean by 'rich' and 'poor' as it is quite a vague term. There are many ways to group countries into the category of rich and poor. The most direct way is of course through the gross domestic product(GDP) or gross national product(GNP) of the nation. However, it is still not that accurate as it only covers the economic welfare of the locals but not the social welfare. We still have to take in account the life expectancy of the nation, the population growth rate, the percentage of agriculutre, industry and services, the birth and death rates, the annual population growth rate, the infant mortality rate, how much resources are available and to what extent are they being utilised and the literacy level. All these factors contribute to defining whether a nation is rich, poor or whether it is a third world or first world nation. However, to simplify things, we assume that a richer nation will have a higher GDP.
I feel that richer nations should extent their help to the poorer nations. There are several ways in which a rich nation can help a poorer nation, in terms of political, economic, environment and social. Some social issues include fights among the races in the countries, health, education and employment problems. When fights among races broke out, the poor nation might not have enough military power or resources to be deployed to stop the rioting. Hence, the rich nation, with a stable military arm force can provide help to the poorer nation by sending their troops to stop the riots. Naturally, this must be done with approval from the other nation. In the outbreak of an epidemic in a nation, the rich countries should provide help to the poorer naitons which might not have the necessary medical equipments and knowledge to minimise the casualties. By providing the country with the necessary knowledge and steps to be taken, it prevents the epidemic from spreading more widely to other countries. Thus, it will prevent an outbreak of worldwide epidemic.
There are benefits to the nation who provided the help. When the rich nation provide help to the poorer country to curb the environmental problems, in one way, it also benefits both parties. For example, Singapore helped Indonesia regarding the issue of forest fires. It minimised the haze problems in Singapore thus solving some of the social problems that the haze had caused such as health problems. It also solved problems like pollution which caused a decline in the tourism industry which is a major sector in Singapore. Thus, it can also solved economic problems in another way. On a larger scale, Singapore lending a helping hand to Indonesia can help in protecting the environment. Thus it not only benefitted the two countries but the whole world. Thus, when help is lent to the poorer countries, solution to many problems is achieved, benefitting both parties.
When a rich nation help a poorer nation, it might be because it wanted to build up friendly relations with its neighbours. It is especially important when the country is vulnerable to attacks. For example, Singapore has provided a lot of resources to Indonesia during the tsunami. The reason might be due to the fact that Indonesia is an Islamic country and since Singapore is mostly surrounded by large numbers of muslims population, the idea of maintaing friendly ties with them is important. One way to do so is providing help to them in times of need.
Therefore, I feel that rich nations should help poorer nations.
junnn05 stepped on your garbage at
7/03/2007 10:55:00 PM
|
"Prejudice is a disease we can never get rid of." Discuss.
To tackle this question, we must first identify and understand the terms in this question. What and how do we define prejudice? According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice,prejudice is the act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions;an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason;unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. In simpler terms, it is a preconceived idea or preference regarding something. So, what do we mean by the term disease in reference to the question? As we know that disease is something bad, that causes damage, that is hard and diffcult to recover from, and that there might never be a cure for it. Hence, by putting it in simpler terms, it means that it is a negative perceptions that might never,or is difficult, to cure.
I agree that prejudice is a disease we can never get rid of. However, it is something that is not inborn in us, but caused by our environment and we are influenced by our surroundings. We all have been exposed to environment where sign of prejudice is shown everywhere-be it in the media, in conversations, in books etc. We have been influenced even before we even understand the terms. Let's take a look at a 3-year-old child watching the movie 'The Lion King'. In the movie, Simba and all the 'good' lions are protrayed in white whereas Scar, the 'bad' guy in the show, is protrayed as a black lion. Although the child does not understand anything about black and white, he has already been 'brainwashed' that 'black' is always the bad person. Not only in this movie, in many other movies we watched, we always see the whites as the good person whereas the blacks as the bad person.
Prejudice has indeed become a widespread disease. It is a hereditary disease, being passed down from generations to generations. We judge people by their colour, religions, beliefs etc, and hence make critics about them. It has become something instilled in us. Let's take a look at Singapore. We're a multi-racial country in which different races and religions live together harmoniusly. Many other countries are working towards this goal, seeking assistance from us to help them attain this goal. However, are we really a country with no prejudice,just because we do not have any riots etc? I beg to differ. We're not saying it out aloud because of the fact that our 'freedom of speech' given to us restricted us to do so. However, in our daily speeches, we've place language of prejudice in our conversations. For example, we referred to the Caucasians as 'ang-mohs' which means red-haired monsters. But, are they really monsters? Why do we referred them as that? Do we even know that we're mocking at them and it is a sign of prejudice? Let's take a look at the most recent case of the mockery at the Thailand's revered monarch. They placed video of the monarch in YouTube, insulting him and sohwing utter disrespect. Isn't this another form of prejudice too?
We all know that the recent big 'hoo-ha' is the debate on homosexuality. Many countries have already start to accept these people. However, there are still people who are against them. People who look down on them, mock at them, despise them. Not only the homosexuals, the blacks, the weaker sex(women), people with different beliefs and ideology are also being prejudiced against. Look at them! In what ways are they different from us? They are also human beings. Why do we have to judge them just because we do not come to terms with them? Why should we deny them the rights to live peacefully just because we don't accept them? We are said to be 'modern people'. People living in the 21st century. People living in an open society. Yet, we picked on every little details we see. We mock and despise at everyone we think who are inferior to us. We kill anyone who has different beliefs, different skin colours. However, aren't we all the same? Aren't we all human beings?
Is there a cure for such prejudice? Yes, there is a medication for this disease. Whether or not should we allow this to continue. Whether or not we want it to be passed down to our next generation. The decision all lies in us.
junnn05 stepped on your garbage at
5/06/2007 04:19:00 PM
|
