http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/effglob.html
is such a broad term and when it comes to my mind, I think of values and norms people have which make them live in a particular way. A way of living in a particular community. In other words, the sum total of all things that refer to religion, roots of people, symbols, language, songs, stories, celebrations and all expressions of our way of life. It encompasses food production, technology, architecture, kinship, the way we relate to each other, political and economic systems and all the social relationships these entail.
Terrorism Act 2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060011_en.pdf
The economist : http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/display.cfm?id=1604388
Examples of terrorism
http://www.answers.com/topic/terrorism?cat=biz-fin
WAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Conduct_of_war
Biodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
Monday, September 10, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Unconventional Sex orientation and Globalisation
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Same-sex marriage is the union of two males or two females in matrimony and they live together as a family. Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political and ecological spheres. The link between same-sex marriage and globalisation is that same-sex marriage may impede the growth of globalisation, that is why fiery discussions and debates are taking place about this issue.
Same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation because it is uncommon and is a vast change from the past. Same-sex marriage exists since the past but in a small quantity. It was alien to most of the population in the past. People have no prior knowledge about this subject. Hence people are uncertain about the effects and consequences of same-sex marriage. People fear the unknown hence the cause for worry and discomfort. One fear is that same-sex marriage changes mindsets and traditional values and may even promotes gayism/lesbianism.
So with this fear of the unknown, people are afraid of the negative repercussions same-sex marriage may bring to globalisation. The assumption made is that society will be influenced negatively and disrupt stability. Also, if a society permits same-sex marriage, the assumption made again is that its economic viability is affected. Potential investors and entrepreneurs may be put off investing. All these will slow down globalisation which is unwelcome.
People have these fears and worries simply because same-sex marriage is unconventional, unlike heterosexual couples. A society's culture is under attack from different ways of thinking and behaviour. However, I think that if a society's culture is not sufficiently strong to withstand external influences, then perhaps the culture is not a strong standing.
Same-sex marriage is a way of life and lifestyles are related to globlisation in a way. Lifestyles provide a sense of direction for globalisation. Globalisation is a change that evolves around the population hence the population matters. As only a minority engages in same-sex marriage, their mindsets and living do not account for the general public. Yet, in the near future their numbers may jolly well increase, forming a significant number in the population. So by legalising same-sex marriages, the number may manifest and become influential. By then, government bodies and people of position and standing have to take notice of gays/lesbians and take their opinions into account. That is when they affect globalisation.
However, I believe that same-sex marriages are the choice of two individuals. It is their freedom of choice to decide what they want to do. It is their human rights to choose this path. Society has no right to intervene in their personal choices. Only when these same-sex marriages have ill effects on society, then society has the right to intervene. There are many examples citing instances and solid proofs where same-sex marriages do threaten the well being of others. But very often, these are based on people's prejudices which reduce the credibility of these proofs.
In conclusion, same-sex marriages may affect globalisation. But this only occurs because of people's perception and way of thinking. If people are open-minded and accept this different lifestyle, no prejudices would be imposed and gays/lesbians would be treated as any other person. The general population will treat gays/lesbians as they would to a straight human being and no discrimination would occur thus globalisation would not affected. Yet, values and beliefs are what humans hold dearly to. Humans have certain principles and mode of life. If humans were to accept any new change easily without questioning, then humans would be simple-minded creatures which humans are not.
Same-sex marriage is the union of two males or two females in matrimony and they live together as a family. Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political and ecological spheres. The link between same-sex marriage and globalisation is that same-sex marriage may impede the growth of globalisation, that is why fiery discussions and debates are taking place about this issue.
Same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation because it is uncommon and is a vast change from the past. Same-sex marriage exists since the past but in a small quantity. It was alien to most of the population in the past. People have no prior knowledge about this subject. Hence people are uncertain about the effects and consequences of same-sex marriage. People fear the unknown hence the cause for worry and discomfort. One fear is that same-sex marriage changes mindsets and traditional values and may even promotes gayism/lesbianism.
So with this fear of the unknown, people are afraid of the negative repercussions same-sex marriage may bring to globalisation. The assumption made is that society will be influenced negatively and disrupt stability. Also, if a society permits same-sex marriage, the assumption made again is that its economic viability is affected. Potential investors and entrepreneurs may be put off investing. All these will slow down globalisation which is unwelcome.
People have these fears and worries simply because same-sex marriage is unconventional, unlike heterosexual couples. A society's culture is under attack from different ways of thinking and behaviour. However, I think that if a society's culture is not sufficiently strong to withstand external influences, then perhaps the culture is not a strong standing.
Same-sex marriage is a way of life and lifestyles are related to globlisation in a way. Lifestyles provide a sense of direction for globalisation. Globalisation is a change that evolves around the population hence the population matters. As only a minority engages in same-sex marriage, their mindsets and living do not account for the general public. Yet, in the near future their numbers may jolly well increase, forming a significant number in the population. So by legalising same-sex marriages, the number may manifest and become influential. By then, government bodies and people of position and standing have to take notice of gays/lesbians and take their opinions into account. That is when they affect globalisation.
However, I believe that same-sex marriages are the choice of two individuals. It is their freedom of choice to decide what they want to do. It is their human rights to choose this path. Society has no right to intervene in their personal choices. Only when these same-sex marriages have ill effects on society, then society has the right to intervene. There are many examples citing instances and solid proofs where same-sex marriages do threaten the well being of others. But very often, these are based on people's prejudices which reduce the credibility of these proofs.
In conclusion, same-sex marriages may affect globalisation. But this only occurs because of people's perception and way of thinking. If people are open-minded and accept this different lifestyle, no prejudices would be imposed and gays/lesbians would be treated as any other person. The general population will treat gays/lesbians as they would to a straight human being and no discrimination would occur thus globalisation would not affected. Yet, values and beliefs are what humans hold dearly to. Humans have certain principles and mode of life. If humans were to accept any new change easily without questioning, then humans would be simple-minded creatures which humans are not.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Aristotle
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)
Do you agree?
Revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. It is caused by people who are unhappy with their present state and thus want to evoke change for the better, to a state that they are satisfied with. Crime is the wrong doings that people commit. Examples include murder, abduction and stealing. Poverty refers to a state of being impoverished.
Aristotle's saying, "The mother of revolution and crime is poverty" is saying that revolution and crime are caused by poverty. I agree with Aristotle. Usually, poor people are unhappy, not because they do not know how to be content but rather they have insufficient to be content about. Poor people struggle with their daily lives and livelihood because they do not have sufficient money for basic expenses such as food, shelter and sanitary facilities. Happiness is very subjective and near impossible to define as each individual has different definitions as to what happiness mean to them. But one fact is that poor people are not happy with their physical state. It is hard to feel joy when one has to struggle with living every single day which is a strain.
Therefore these unhappy people who are discontented about their present state want a change. They want a better life where they no longer have to worry about survival and are able to live life like an average human being. So the answer to this problem is to revoluntionise. This is how revolutions come about. They are the solutions to problems that people face. Feasibility and effectiveness of this as a solution, however is a whole other issue. But these poor people could not care less. They are very unhappy and they demand a change, anything other than their state of poverty would be an improvement to them. Hence revolutions occur and often periods of trouble and tribulations follow.
However it is not true to say that revolution is entirely caused by poverty. Poverty is only but one of the many causes of revolution. There are many types of revolution caused by different issues. There are cultural, intellectual, philosophical and technological revolutions. The people who started these revolutions may not necessarily be poor. They may be elites or nobles who are displeased with certain laws and thus rebel against it. Most of the time, the rich has more power and hence would be able to effect change and has more influence than the poor. The rich also has more resources to revolutionise than the poor. The key to starting a revolution is to get a large group of like-minded people and half the battle's won. With people, there is might. These people again, need not be the poor.
Common crimes such as stealing, pickpocketing and robberies are mostly committed by the poor for a simple reason - the need to survive. Hence in such cases, poverty does cause crime. However, a number of such crimes do not take place because the criminal is poor and needs money. Sometimes, the criminal is very rich and is only committing such crimes for fun or to seek attention. Or, the criminal may commit the crime because he is being dared to or asked to prove his bravery by some gang. Again, the latter group of people may not be poor.
Often, an unfair assumption about the poor is made. The poor needs to use unlawful means to survive. The poor has to steal to get money. Hence people often associate poverty with crimes. But this assumption is outright untrue. Yes, some poor people may steal because they need money but not all poor people do so. It is therefore unreasonable to label the poor as people who commit crimes as Aristotle's saying seem to do so.
There are other types of crimes such as rape and murder which have no link with money. Not all murderers or rapists are poor. Hence it is untrue to say that poverty leads to these crimes. There are very driving forces behind these types of crimes such as hatred and so on, it is not solely due to poverty.
Poverty is indeed a reason for crimes and revolutions but it is not the sole cause. There are a thousand and one reasons for crimes and revolutions. Aristotle is right in saying that poverty triggers crime and revolutions but this is not true all the time.
Do you agree?
Revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. It is caused by people who are unhappy with their present state and thus want to evoke change for the better, to a state that they are satisfied with. Crime is the wrong doings that people commit. Examples include murder, abduction and stealing. Poverty refers to a state of being impoverished.
Aristotle's saying, "The mother of revolution and crime is poverty" is saying that revolution and crime are caused by poverty. I agree with Aristotle. Usually, poor people are unhappy, not because they do not know how to be content but rather they have insufficient to be content about. Poor people struggle with their daily lives and livelihood because they do not have sufficient money for basic expenses such as food, shelter and sanitary facilities. Happiness is very subjective and near impossible to define as each individual has different definitions as to what happiness mean to them. But one fact is that poor people are not happy with their physical state. It is hard to feel joy when one has to struggle with living every single day which is a strain.
Therefore these unhappy people who are discontented about their present state want a change. They want a better life where they no longer have to worry about survival and are able to live life like an average human being. So the answer to this problem is to revoluntionise. This is how revolutions come about. They are the solutions to problems that people face. Feasibility and effectiveness of this as a solution, however is a whole other issue. But these poor people could not care less. They are very unhappy and they demand a change, anything other than their state of poverty would be an improvement to them. Hence revolutions occur and often periods of trouble and tribulations follow.
However it is not true to say that revolution is entirely caused by poverty. Poverty is only but one of the many causes of revolution. There are many types of revolution caused by different issues. There are cultural, intellectual, philosophical and technological revolutions. The people who started these revolutions may not necessarily be poor. They may be elites or nobles who are displeased with certain laws and thus rebel against it. Most of the time, the rich has more power and hence would be able to effect change and has more influence than the poor. The rich also has more resources to revolutionise than the poor. The key to starting a revolution is to get a large group of like-minded people and half the battle's won. With people, there is might. These people again, need not be the poor.
Common crimes such as stealing, pickpocketing and robberies are mostly committed by the poor for a simple reason - the need to survive. Hence in such cases, poverty does cause crime. However, a number of such crimes do not take place because the criminal is poor and needs money. Sometimes, the criminal is very rich and is only committing such crimes for fun or to seek attention. Or, the criminal may commit the crime because he is being dared to or asked to prove his bravery by some gang. Again, the latter group of people may not be poor.
Often, an unfair assumption about the poor is made. The poor needs to use unlawful means to survive. The poor has to steal to get money. Hence people often associate poverty with crimes. But this assumption is outright untrue. Yes, some poor people may steal because they need money but not all poor people do so. It is therefore unreasonable to label the poor as people who commit crimes as Aristotle's saying seem to do so.
There are other types of crimes such as rape and murder which have no link with money. Not all murderers or rapists are poor. Hence it is untrue to say that poverty leads to these crimes. There are very driving forces behind these types of crimes such as hatred and so on, it is not solely due to poverty.
Poverty is indeed a reason for crimes and revolutions but it is not the sole cause. There are a thousand and one reasons for crimes and revolutions. Aristotle is right in saying that poverty triggers crime and revolutions but this is not true all the time.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Racial Harmony
Blogging task
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.
Like in all controversial issues, there is no definite right answer. Both authors stated their stands clearly with strong supporting details, making it difficult to refute either of their stands. To resolve any problem, often more than not, a single solution is not used. Instead, a variety of solutions is used. This is because by using only one solution, the results tend to lean to one extreme side. So, a number of solutions is used to complement each other and to strike a balance.
I think that to achieve maximum positive results, both authors' views should be adopted. This is in accordance with Singapore's culture, beliefs and mindsets. Singapore is becoming more open-minded, accepting of new ideas than before, and becoming less conservative. However, comparing Singapore with say, the United States, the United States is without doubt more liberal than Singapore. This is because the United States value liberty the most and this liberty refers to freedom which includes the freedom of speech. Singer's view may work very well in United States but not as well in Singapore due to the fact that Singapore values its liberty equally with other things such as racial harmony. Liberty is not Singapore's topmost priority though it is one of her priorities.
It is true that democracy celebrates individualism and that each individual should have the right to voice his/her views. This is the whole idea of democracy and liberty. However, if this liberty is not taken charge of, it is susceptible to abuse. Simply because not every individual has the same maturity and level of thinking. To a person with a lower level of thinking, making hurtful and destructive racist comments may only mean expressing his/her own views. He/she does not take into account the consequences and after-effect of his/her actions or words. With this type of people, giving them total liberty poses a danger to the racial harmony that Singapore enjoys.
Take for example the blogger who was sentenced to jail last year for making irresponsible racist comments on his blog. He had been given the liberty and freedom of expressing what he wants to say on his own blog. But he had abused the trust given, the trust that he knows what ought and what ought not to be written. Thus he was punished to make a statement and an example that it is not alright to make hurtful comments about another race and that the perpetrator would be duly punished. This is a case whereby the government intervened to make known of its stand towards the level of liberty it gives to the people.
Singer says, "Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: 'We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslems, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.' ” He is implying that it is okay to offend other people or even large groups of people. I disagree with him because this causes tension and unhappiness. The tension aroused due to liberal comments made irresponsibly by people is detrimental to racial harmony in Singapore. Racial harmony, though not frail, is not that strong a bond either. So Singapore should protect her precious racial harmony at all costs. So absolute liberty should not be given to Singaporeans.
Szilagyi believes more in social responsibility because once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas. Only with social responsibility, then does one know which are the harmless messages that can be passed without damaging harmony among the races. I fully agree with Szilagyi that the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom. Social responsibility has a more permanent effect.
In conclusion, a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility of individuals should be attained to best protect our racial harmony. Social responsibility is indeed important but so is the freedom to express oneself in this rapid globalising society. A globalised individual is one that expresses himself freely yet has the social responsibility to maintain racial harmony. The key to the problem is to strike a balance.
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.
Like in all controversial issues, there is no definite right answer. Both authors stated their stands clearly with strong supporting details, making it difficult to refute either of their stands. To resolve any problem, often more than not, a single solution is not used. Instead, a variety of solutions is used. This is because by using only one solution, the results tend to lean to one extreme side. So, a number of solutions is used to complement each other and to strike a balance.
I think that to achieve maximum positive results, both authors' views should be adopted. This is in accordance with Singapore's culture, beliefs and mindsets. Singapore is becoming more open-minded, accepting of new ideas than before, and becoming less conservative. However, comparing Singapore with say, the United States, the United States is without doubt more liberal than Singapore. This is because the United States value liberty the most and this liberty refers to freedom which includes the freedom of speech. Singer's view may work very well in United States but not as well in Singapore due to the fact that Singapore values its liberty equally with other things such as racial harmony. Liberty is not Singapore's topmost priority though it is one of her priorities.
It is true that democracy celebrates individualism and that each individual should have the right to voice his/her views. This is the whole idea of democracy and liberty. However, if this liberty is not taken charge of, it is susceptible to abuse. Simply because not every individual has the same maturity and level of thinking. To a person with a lower level of thinking, making hurtful and destructive racist comments may only mean expressing his/her own views. He/she does not take into account the consequences and after-effect of his/her actions or words. With this type of people, giving them total liberty poses a danger to the racial harmony that Singapore enjoys.
Take for example the blogger who was sentenced to jail last year for making irresponsible racist comments on his blog. He had been given the liberty and freedom of expressing what he wants to say on his own blog. But he had abused the trust given, the trust that he knows what ought and what ought not to be written. Thus he was punished to make a statement and an example that it is not alright to make hurtful comments about another race and that the perpetrator would be duly punished. This is a case whereby the government intervened to make known of its stand towards the level of liberty it gives to the people.
Singer says, "Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: 'We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslems, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.' ” He is implying that it is okay to offend other people or even large groups of people. I disagree with him because this causes tension and unhappiness. The tension aroused due to liberal comments made irresponsibly by people is detrimental to racial harmony in Singapore. Racial harmony, though not frail, is not that strong a bond either. So Singapore should protect her precious racial harmony at all costs. So absolute liberty should not be given to Singaporeans.
Szilagyi believes more in social responsibility because once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas. Only with social responsibility, then does one know which are the harmless messages that can be passed without damaging harmony among the races. I fully agree with Szilagyi that the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom. Social responsibility has a more permanent effect.
In conclusion, a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility of individuals should be attained to best protect our racial harmony. Social responsibility is indeed important but so is the freedom to express oneself in this rapid globalising society. A globalised individual is one that expresses himself freely yet has the social responsibility to maintain racial harmony. The key to the problem is to strike a balance.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Death penalty
"The death penalty is murder and should be abolished." Do you agree?
Proclaiming death penalty as murder is very subjective because circumstances differ from case to case. Murder refers to the killing of a life, regardless of whether it is accidental or done with an agenda. But in the eyes of the law, planning to kill is murder whereas accidental killing is treated as manslaughter. So which crimes actually warrant the death penalty is a questionable doubt by itself.
In my opinion, a criminal who planned and killed another human being is a murderer and sentencing a death penalty on him is the price he has to pay for his actions and is justified. Although I do not support strongly the statement a life for a life, sentencing a murderer to death is not murder because I look at it as punishment for his deed. In this case, the death penalty should not be abolished because it serves to prevent and deter potential murderers.
Another crime that warrants the death penalty is the trafficking of drugs in Singapore. Usage of drugs destroys one's health and is able to take a person's life directly hence trafficking and selling drugs is also considered as murder. Though these people supply the drugs, they do not have the ability to force a person to consume these drugs. It is the choice of the individual to consume the drugs and go on the path of self-destruction. Therefore, the drug traffickers or sellers should not be held responsible fully and sentencing the death penalty on them would be too harsh and in this case, the death penalty seems difficult to justify.
My take on this is that where the death penalty is justified, as I have provided an example of earlier on, it is not murder. It is meted out to punish the criminals. On the other hand, the death penalty is still the taking of a life nonetheless. Despite the severity of the crime, does one human actually have the authority to end the life of another fellow human being? According to some religions, it is allowed.
The pro of death penalty is that it serves as deterrence to potential law-breakers. It is a severe form of punishment that is sufficient to drive fear in people and restrict. The con of the death penalty is that it is irreversible. Any death penalty carried out wrongly cannot be undone. It would be a life-long regret and a tragedy.
In conclusion, the death penalty is justifiable for some crimes, such as planned killing, and is a punishment for the criminals. I do believe that people can turn over a new leaf, repent and start anew. But I do not believe this is so for every single one. I cannot empathise with a cannibal and never can. To me, the eating of another human's flesh is just not humanly possible. The minds of these cannibals are sadly twisted. So putting these people to death is the right choice as they pose harm to the society.
I think that the death penalty should not be abolished because it is useful. Though newspapers do not report that a crime was not committed because the potential criminal was afraid of the death penalty, this does happen. The death penalty may be a cruel punishment but it cannot be done without because a person who does not fear death is almost fearless. But in this age and day where humans have evolved both physically and mentally, it is possible for a person not to fear death but to fear the smallest of all things. Hence nothing is absolute. My perspective is that the death penalty more than suffices as punishment.
Proclaiming death penalty as murder is very subjective because circumstances differ from case to case. Murder refers to the killing of a life, regardless of whether it is accidental or done with an agenda. But in the eyes of the law, planning to kill is murder whereas accidental killing is treated as manslaughter. So which crimes actually warrant the death penalty is a questionable doubt by itself.
In my opinion, a criminal who planned and killed another human being is a murderer and sentencing a death penalty on him is the price he has to pay for his actions and is justified. Although I do not support strongly the statement a life for a life, sentencing a murderer to death is not murder because I look at it as punishment for his deed. In this case, the death penalty should not be abolished because it serves to prevent and deter potential murderers.
Another crime that warrants the death penalty is the trafficking of drugs in Singapore. Usage of drugs destroys one's health and is able to take a person's life directly hence trafficking and selling drugs is also considered as murder. Though these people supply the drugs, they do not have the ability to force a person to consume these drugs. It is the choice of the individual to consume the drugs and go on the path of self-destruction. Therefore, the drug traffickers or sellers should not be held responsible fully and sentencing the death penalty on them would be too harsh and in this case, the death penalty seems difficult to justify.
My take on this is that where the death penalty is justified, as I have provided an example of earlier on, it is not murder. It is meted out to punish the criminals. On the other hand, the death penalty is still the taking of a life nonetheless. Despite the severity of the crime, does one human actually have the authority to end the life of another fellow human being? According to some religions, it is allowed.
The pro of death penalty is that it serves as deterrence to potential law-breakers. It is a severe form of punishment that is sufficient to drive fear in people and restrict. The con of the death penalty is that it is irreversible. Any death penalty carried out wrongly cannot be undone. It would be a life-long regret and a tragedy.
In conclusion, the death penalty is justifiable for some crimes, such as planned killing, and is a punishment for the criminals. I do believe that people can turn over a new leaf, repent and start anew. But I do not believe this is so for every single one. I cannot empathise with a cannibal and never can. To me, the eating of another human's flesh is just not humanly possible. The minds of these cannibals are sadly twisted. So putting these people to death is the right choice as they pose harm to the society.
I think that the death penalty should not be abolished because it is useful. Though newspapers do not report that a crime was not committed because the potential criminal was afraid of the death penalty, this does happen. The death penalty may be a cruel punishment but it cannot be done without because a person who does not fear death is almost fearless. But in this age and day where humans have evolved both physically and mentally, it is possible for a person not to fear death but to fear the smallest of all things. Hence nothing is absolute. My perspective is that the death penalty more than suffices as punishment.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Censorship : Must or Boo
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.
Definitely censorship has its good points, otherwise it would not be implemented at all and the use of it would not be sustained. Is censorship a must or is it a boo? Some merits of censorship are namely, to protect and to preserve a society's certain mindset and values.
Through censorship, people can be protected from extreme violence, rude forms of images such as pornography, profanities and the list is infinite. People are protected from these because they are damaging. Some like extreme violence and pornography may affect a person's mind negatively causing a person to do things which he would normally not do in a right state of mind. Such examples can be found daily in the newspapers. For example, when a person watches an excessive dosage of violence and is obsessed with it by wanting to emulate what he sees, a serial killer may be born. So in this case, if violence and such are censored, many crimes and troubles would not have arise. Another more common example is when faces or body parts are censored in television programmes. A person's face may be blurred, that is censored, to protect his identity. In reality shows like "Survivor", it is inevitable that certain private parts of the participants' bodies are disclosed. It is then necessary to censor these images to protect the participants and also for the discretion of the viewers.
Some movies and films contain an anti-peace or anti-government message. These films promote conflict and may even disrupt social peace. By censoring these films or even disallow the screening of these films can preserve the peace that a society enjoys. Take for example if a film were anti-Christinity or any other religions, it would stir up a commotion here in Singapore. Social order would then fail to exist. A society such as modern Singapore is not conservative yet a portion of Singaporeans cannot accept concepts such as gay marriages which are approved in some countries. If television programmes do not censor such concepts deemed unacceptable by the society, it would influence people's mindsets and even values. Such is the influence of images.
On the other hand, censorship has its minus points too. Censorship witholds pieces of information from people, sometimes blurring the big picture. People would then be unable to have a factual overview and thus would have to infer. These inferences may not be justified and be wrong. There is also the issue of too much or too little is being censored. The line between too much and too little censor is fine and indeterminate. Censorship could also just simply be a delay of information.
Pornography may be censored in films and given a rating. However, people are able to find means of obtaining these censored materials. Censorship is not foolproof, it only helps to prevent or acts as a barricade. Its big failing point is it is not infallible. Censorship acts as a shielding screen but this screen is thin and penetrable. So censorship is not useful in this sense. Censorship causes naivety in people. Innocence by default is good but when is it naivety and when is it pure innocence? Knowledge is power as the saying goes. Does witholding knowledge from people equate to leaving them powerless? These are the pitfalls of censorship.
Despite the loopholes censorship has, I think that it is necessary. Censorship helps to shield and protect regardless of how effective or ineffective it may be. The absence of censorship will result in rampant widespread of extreme violence and other unhealthy materials. Therefore censorship must not be eliminated. Even though censorship may simply cause a delay in access to information, it is nonetheless helpful. Perhaps an older person has the maturity that a young child may lack in dealing with violence, pornography and controversial materials.
In my opinion, should there come a day where censorship is no longer present, it would be an age where more eccentric acts will occur, acts which are beyond my brain. As such, in this century where we receive protection, there are still abnormal behaviours. Just like the recent killings done by a Korean student in the States. His behaviour is obviously not what people would define as normal. What caused such peculiarity is a question asked. So, I conclude that if censorship were not in place, far more bizzare and unusual acts will be commited and shock the rest of the world-the normal people. This leads to another question though - what defines normal?
Definitely censorship has its good points, otherwise it would not be implemented at all and the use of it would not be sustained. Is censorship a must or is it a boo? Some merits of censorship are namely, to protect and to preserve a society's certain mindset and values.
Through censorship, people can be protected from extreme violence, rude forms of images such as pornography, profanities and the list is infinite. People are protected from these because they are damaging. Some like extreme violence and pornography may affect a person's mind negatively causing a person to do things which he would normally not do in a right state of mind. Such examples can be found daily in the newspapers. For example, when a person watches an excessive dosage of violence and is obsessed with it by wanting to emulate what he sees, a serial killer may be born. So in this case, if violence and such are censored, many crimes and troubles would not have arise. Another more common example is when faces or body parts are censored in television programmes. A person's face may be blurred, that is censored, to protect his identity. In reality shows like "Survivor", it is inevitable that certain private parts of the participants' bodies are disclosed. It is then necessary to censor these images to protect the participants and also for the discretion of the viewers.
Some movies and films contain an anti-peace or anti-government message. These films promote conflict and may even disrupt social peace. By censoring these films or even disallow the screening of these films can preserve the peace that a society enjoys. Take for example if a film were anti-Christinity or any other religions, it would stir up a commotion here in Singapore. Social order would then fail to exist. A society such as modern Singapore is not conservative yet a portion of Singaporeans cannot accept concepts such as gay marriages which are approved in some countries. If television programmes do not censor such concepts deemed unacceptable by the society, it would influence people's mindsets and even values. Such is the influence of images.
On the other hand, censorship has its minus points too. Censorship witholds pieces of information from people, sometimes blurring the big picture. People would then be unable to have a factual overview and thus would have to infer. These inferences may not be justified and be wrong. There is also the issue of too much or too little is being censored. The line between too much and too little censor is fine and indeterminate. Censorship could also just simply be a delay of information.
Pornography may be censored in films and given a rating. However, people are able to find means of obtaining these censored materials. Censorship is not foolproof, it only helps to prevent or acts as a barricade. Its big failing point is it is not infallible. Censorship acts as a shielding screen but this screen is thin and penetrable. So censorship is not useful in this sense. Censorship causes naivety in people. Innocence by default is good but when is it naivety and when is it pure innocence? Knowledge is power as the saying goes. Does witholding knowledge from people equate to leaving them powerless? These are the pitfalls of censorship.
Despite the loopholes censorship has, I think that it is necessary. Censorship helps to shield and protect regardless of how effective or ineffective it may be. The absence of censorship will result in rampant widespread of extreme violence and other unhealthy materials. Therefore censorship must not be eliminated. Even though censorship may simply cause a delay in access to information, it is nonetheless helpful. Perhaps an older person has the maturity that a young child may lack in dealing with violence, pornography and controversial materials.
In my opinion, should there come a day where censorship is no longer present, it would be an age where more eccentric acts will occur, acts which are beyond my brain. As such, in this century where we receive protection, there are still abnormal behaviours. Just like the recent killings done by a Korean student in the States. His behaviour is obviously not what people would define as normal. What caused such peculiarity is a question asked. So, I conclude that if censorship were not in place, far more bizzare and unusual acts will be commited and shock the rest of the world-the normal people. This leads to another question though - what defines normal?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Mass Media : Subjective Perception
How does the media and its subjective perception affect the way this incident was handled?
The mass media holds great influence. As a result of its publication, it has created a big impact on this incident. This is not surprising. The mass media should know that it contains a massive power to affect or even control its audience' minds. Hence journalists, who are part of the mass media, should be aware of the power of their words and be responsible for them. The responsibility of journalists is to provide an unbiased account and facts of the events they report. There should be no assumptions or opinions that could prove unfair to the subjects of the event.
This incident refers to the reaction of two members of the Singapore's swimming relay team when they heard about the disqualificaion of the American team. Bryan Tay and Zach Ong were bewildered and their facial expressions were that of utter disbelief. They were misinterpreted by certain journalists as mocking and scoffing at the American team. This, of course stirred up controversy and even anger. However, this was not the case. Bryan Tay and Zach Ong were simply shocked. They had no intention of jeering at the American team.
But because of the angle the journalist chose to report this incident, it portrayed Bryan Tan and Zach Ong as immature and lacking sportsmanship. The reporter did not make clarifications and convieniently assumed them to be smiling in happinessness. This does not reflect well on the both of them and is also very unfair to them.
In actual fact, there was nothing worth reporting about the incident. Disqualifications due to careless mistakes committed by athletes are nothing out of the ordinary. However, because the media chose to focus on the expressions of just two people without putting it into context, this incident suddenly became newsworthy.
The media should have reported the incident in an objective perception. That is, it was a pity that such well-qualified swimmers made a slight mistake and was penalised for it. That was all there was to it. Instead, the media chose to be subjective. Perhaps the media was trying to stir emotions and feelings, making their report more exciting and noteworthy. In any case, it was wrong and irresponsible of the media to do so. Its subjective perception has caused Bryan Tan and Zach Ong to become notorious. Since they are national swimmers representing Singapore, it affects Singapore's reputation too.
The report would have been factual and informative if the media had reported it with an objective perception. Its subjective perception has resulted in misunderstandings causing much unpleasant feelings. The influence of the media should never be underestimated.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
A brief introduction cum warning ^.^
My name is hui hui. I was from Rosyth primary and Mayflower secondary. One thing which makes me see red is when people call the english version of my name which sounds something like "hwee hwee". So if you never ever want to get into my bad books, do not ever call me that. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
