MR 3IghtEEn

Research

2007-09-10T14:19:00.000+08:00

1) Cultural Globalisation

http://www.editiondesign.com/fgf/knowledge/article007.html

http://uk.geocities.com/balihar_sanghera/cmeglobalisation.html

Some broader aspects of globalisation:

For some, the expansion of shared or common cultural references across the worlds evokes cosmopolitan ideals. Cultural encounters can create new and productive kinds of cultural fusion and hybridity.
For some, there is a cultural homogenisation and erosion of cultural distinctiveness.
For a few, globalisation is linked to revalidation of particular cultures and identities.
Most agree that old certainties and hierarchies of identities are called into question in a world of dissolving boundaries and disrupted continuities.
Three dimensions of global cultural change worth noting:
it has sought to dissolve the frontiers and divisions between different cultures.
it involves openness to global dynamics and an acceptance of cultural diversity.
it rejects global integration, as people remain loyal to local histories, identities and traditions (e.g. resurgence of nationalism and fundamentalism)

http://kahome.co.uk/essay1.htm

2) Environment & Biodiversity

http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/sust-tourism/env-3main.htm
http://www.naturenet.net/education/tourism.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/environment/conservationnow/global/

3)Sustainable Development

4) Terrorism & War

http://terrorism-online.blogspot.com/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/

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

2007-09-05T21:33:00.000+08:00

A marriage, in its most traditional definition, is a union between people of opposite gender. To people my age, marriage is probably something that teens daydream about. It may not occur in the near future, but I would think that it would come, sooner or later. So, when the big day finally arrives, brides-to-be may fantasise of their wonderful future ahead with their Prince Charming. Alas, their partner waiting in the church may be Princess Charming instead.

As globalisation takes place, national boundaries are blurred. Ideas from the West are spreading to this part of the world and vice versa. To the liberals, they may ask why this is a concern in the first place. If the heterosexuals can marry, why can’t the homosexuals? The conventional views that surround marriage may thus have to give way to more open-minded thinking.

One reason why people may be wary about same-sex marriage is the fear of the unknown. One consequence some people believe will occur that comes with accepting and legalising such marriages is that they threaten to destroy the social fabric that has held nations together for as long one can remember -- heterosexual marriages.

The concerns of these sceptics are not unfounded. In the Scandinavian countries, where gay marriages are legalised, heterosexual marriages are being undermined because the message that is being sent out is that any form of parenthood is acceptable. This may occur on the societal level, where the entire institution of marriage breaks down.

However, on the individual level, I would believe that one can make a decision for himself. If he firmly believes in the strength of heterosexual marriages, he would put in his best effort to ensure the success of such institutions and not be bothered by same-sex marriages. As much as he has the right to believe in heterosexual marriages, others have the right to believe in other forms of marriages.

In conclusion, I think that the freedom to choose is a human right. In this case, it is one’s choice to choose a same-sex or opposite-sex partner. As Muhammad Yunus, the pioneer of microcredit, said, “We create what we want”. He champions the end of poverty; those who believe that same-sex marriage should be accepted should continue with their conviction. With changing times, ideas that seem ridiculous now may be accepted as perfectly normal I time to come. So, I do think that a same-sex marriage is indeed a practical consideration.

The mother of revolution and crime is poverty

2007-08-13T15:43:00.000+08:00

“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” (Aristotle) Do you agree?

“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” By this statement, it means that it was poverty that gave rise to revolution and crime. However, it has to be noted that other factors such as the desire to achieve one’s ambition as a motivating factor as well as one’s own personal greed respectively can also lead to revolution and crime.

Poverty. It is a situation which one would like to avoid as far as possible. After all, it means one lacks material comforts and basic necessities. Would it not be a better prospect if one had all that he wanted? That is where revolution and crime come in. Man is always striving to do better than his ancestors. As we look back at the people centuries before us, it is not hard to see this spirit in humans. Citizens of the world currently trapped in poverty may not be satisfied with their lives and, thus, take action to end the misery they are in. There may be those who stoop to petty crimes to gain some money to tide over the situation in the short run. For those with greater ambitions, they may resort to revolutions to overthrow the inefficient governments that made no significant effort to alleviate the situation they were in. Their revolutions may also raise awareness of the plights they are in and, hopefully, receive aid that they desperately need.

However, revolutions against the government may also be due to the corruption present in the bureaucracy, leading to inefficiency in taking care of the general welfare of the people, let alone taking care of the powerless and poor citizens. Thus, the reason for revolution in this case is due to the want to live a better life than the present situation. With the incompetent government toppled, the organisation replacing it is usually headed by one who has plans for the future of the people, thus, providing a chance for the people to lead a better life.

Also, an individual’s avarice may also lead to crime. By Aristotle’s statement, it implies that only the poor commit crimes. But that is far from the truth! People from all walks of life commit crimes; there is no denying that fact. Every now and then, the media would report on a top executive of various organizations involved in embezzlement of company funds. One good example would be Mr T.T Durai, disgraced former CEO of National Kidney Foundation. He was found guilty of misleading NKF with a falsified invoice of $20,000. Surely, he is a person not in poverty, with the pay he earns at NKF, yet he still committed a crime. This is a contradiction of the statement above.

In conclusion, I think that poverty does contribute to revolution and crime but it is not the most important factor. Take the example of the 1911 Revolution in China against the Manchu government. Although one reason why the incident occurred was due to the poverty that the poeple had to live with, it was the ineffiency of the government that led to the people uprising against the government. To me, I think that people do have the ability to live in poverty, but the government does not promise anything inkling of a better life? So, there is no motivation for the people to work hard. Thus, i think that is not poverty that leads to revolution and crime. Rather, it is the inefficiency of the government that set Man thinking about revolution and crime.

Racial Harmony in Singapore

2007-07-01T21:01:00.000+08:00

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

The existence of the freedom to express is of paramount importance because only when “a view is fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, will it become a living truth and not a dead dogma.” Indeed, only when it is fully talked about, will the people understand the meaning behind an event, belief, etc. It is quite terrible if people blindly accept something because it is the rule, rather than the exception, to do so. With freedom of speech, one’s analytical skills and perception of issues around the world are built.

However, while in the course of expressing ourselves, due consideration to other people should be given. In this modern world that we live in, “we all effectively live next door to one another”. In cyberspace, the number of social networking sites and blogs are increasing. Thus, it is even possible to know someone halfway across the globe! However, it is because of this that “traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.” In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Thus, we should be sensitive to others in our daily lives and blogs.

A few months back, two Chinese men were sentenced to jail for posting negative remarks about Malays and their beliefs on their blogs. So, in Singapore, it can be seen that the government places more emphasis on the collective interests of society rather than the freedom to express. This is a stand that I support. Call me conservative, but I would rather be that than see my home in chaos just because of some people’s senseless remarks. Perhaps, the two men could receive some counseling during the jail term to let them understand what they did was tactless and let them know more about the Malays as well as their beliefs.

the DEATH penalty

2007-05-02T12:28:00.000+08:00

“The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder”. Do you agree?

To the innocent small children in school going about their daily routines by studying and playing, their world consists of that only. They recognize only their friends, family members, their teachers and perhaps nothing else. But little do they know that out in the world, danger lurks everywhere. From small petty theft to burglary, from speeding cars to towering tankers, and yes, even murder. Murder may just be a six-letter word, but the consequences of committing it are far-reaching.

The culprit receives a death penalty as stated by the law. But he is not the only one who suffers. The victim’s families have to undergo tremendous heartbreak; the culprit’s loved ones may feel disappointed. The rest of the community is also dragged into this issue. The issue about whether the death penalty is justifiable or not.

So the debate is over this statement: "The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder". To the average man on the street, the definition of the death penalty is to kill a person over a heinous crime he had commited and that of murder is to end the life of someone on purpose.

Having said that, the answer to the statement is obviously a definite 'Yes!' By sentencing one to the death penalty, careful consideration has to be put in place to think about how that individual will meet his maker. There is intention, no doubt about that!

That would have been the end of the story. But if one will just care to remember the events that led to the criminal's punishments, it will not take a genius to realise the heinous crimes that he had done.

First of all, I would like to remind all that the wrongdoer actually had a choice to whether he would be subjected to such "murderous" treatment. Before he commited the act, he would have known the consequences as he had planned for it. To be under such cruel treatment, the felon must have killed somebody, threatened national security and the like. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Such wicked acts must be followed by an equally terrible outcome: the DEATH penalty.

Current methods of the death penalty aside, ancient methods also prove very gory and brutal. Just hearing about the process of the execution sends goosebumps up to me. I may not be a seasoned criminal, but I think many feel the same way too. So, my point is that to prevent ending up dead in humiliating and unnatural circumstances, the punishment does put off would-be perpetrators. Thus, the death penalty does acts as a deterrent.

Since centuries ago, the death penalty has been in place. Despite the violence or the psycholgical damage it may bring, atrocious crimes are still not eradicated. I guess the inner desire to challenge authority is a thrill for some. Thus, though penalties are in place already, there are still criminals who break the law. I cannot imagine what would happen on the day these laws are removed. Will things remain in status quo or will there be chaos? My guess would be the latter. Thus, this shows that the above statement is incorrect as the death penalty is indeed a deterrent!

The execution of these criminals bring about several benefits. Firstly, justice is meted out. It serves as a gentle warning to the society that wrongdoers will be punished severely but appropriately. Secondly, with the criminal dead, it ensures that the streets are safer. Last but not least, it provides some consolation to the victim's families that the enemy is now motionless.

In conclusion, I cannot deny the fact that the death penalty is murder. However, I believe that the argument for it to act as a deterrent is much stronger.

MeDiA

2007-04-27T22:32:00.000+08:00

Perception vs Reality:
1. What led the media to report untruths?
2. What is real?

What led the media to report untruths?

I believe the perception that the media creates stems from its credibility, or rather, the lack of it. There are a couple of reasons for this phenomenon, like corruption and bias, but they all come under one main category: for self-benefit.

Singapore is lucky to have reputable newspapers that her people can count on. However, the same cannot be said of some other newspapers. They are plagued by above-mentioned problems and cannot rid themselves of them. Where cases of these occur in developing countries, it could be due to financial issues. The media requires money to stop the rot they face, but by reporting untruths that their “customers” bought, they could just be sinking deeper.

Sometimes, it is not that the media is corrupted. It could be due to their obliging nature towards their leaders. Trying not to come down too hard on the government, the media try to alleviate the situation by reporting a certain extent of the truth or at least, provide a plausible reason for a particular event.

Also, I would also consider it the fault of the politicians in the article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq” that led to a pack of lies being fabricated. They may be world-renowned bigwigs, but several US leaders finger-pointed and made false, or at the very least, misleading, statements. So, the media cannot really do much but to report what was seen and heard. But, perhaps the journalists involved could do with a little more investigative work to ensure that their work is credible and not take the politicians’ words for it?

So what is real?

To me, everything in this world is not real. Humans will die one day; memories will fade with the passing of time; teachings that humans hold in deep respect may just be totally illogical or untrue and vice versa over time. Thus, it does not matter whether something is true or not.

So, to all the messages that the media has been trying to convey to the masses, I take it with a pinch of salt. Having said that, I believe that it is possible the article mentioned above may not be the entire reality.

CensorShip

2007-04-18T21:06:00.000+08:00

What are the merits & demerits of having censorship
State reasons why they are (un)necessary

Merits:
1. Censorship helps to prevent sensitive issues, like race and religion, from being observed by immature people. Censorship is necessary as it can help to prevent potential tensions. Can any Singaporean imagine what it is like to have glass bottles being flung at people of different races or have their house looted by religious extremists? Thus, censorship is put in place to avoid the ensuing chaos the country would be in if freedom of press is allowed.

Demerits:
1. The role that the censor can act is fairly limited in some areas. For example, the young are protected against pornography, for one. However, with the Internet accessible to almost everyone in Singapore, even children can view forbidden footage there instead of media such as the television. So, in this case, how effective can censorship be?

2. Perhaps the temptation of the forbidden fruit is too strong, it seems that the more we try to protect our young, the more curious they will be about that particular subject. Think about it: Each time Mum says “No” to something we want, the desire to go against her and find out what something really is increases. Suddenly, censorship just aggravated the very problem that it was trying to avoid.

3. Censorship, mentioned under a favourable light, can be seen to protect the young from subjects deemed socially unacceptable. These issues include violence, unnatural sex, and, to a certain extent, politics. However, to me, this form of protection does no good to a child still exploring the world. If from young, a toddler is not exposed to the evils of this world but instead only to the positive aspects, then he has a biased and ignorant view of this world. However, the truth will definitely come to light eventually. Thus, one day, when images and passages that were withheld from him for many years were suddenly released, what effects will there be on this child? The perfect image he had of his fellow humans may be shattered overnight.

Recently, there was also an anti-smoking advertisement, which featured a woman suffering from oral cancer. Several members of the public caused a furore, complaining that the gory image scared their young children. They suggested that their children be shielded from these pictures. But I beg to differ. Maturity of one’s mind does not occur overnight. It does not mean that when one reaches 18 years of age, he is more mentally prepared to receive violent or sexual content compared to a 16- year old person. Thus, I support the approach of the current anti-smoking campaign. Inform everyone and spare not even the young. Train their mental strength now or I will have difficulty understanding how they can survive a M18 movie when they finally come of age if they have been protected all their lives.

In conclusion, I attribute part of the peace and stability we enjoy now to censorship. However, I cannot deny the growing feeling that because youth today are over-protected and that we have no first-hand experience of the evils of Man, we are becoming a little complacent and ignorant. Is censorship to blame for this? “Yes”, I would say, to a large extent.

Foreigners in EducaXn

2007-04-02T21:00:00.000+08:00

I refer to the article dated 1 April 2007. The article discusses mainly how well foreign students, especially the Chinese, do in school. As mentioned in the article, the Chinese are usually way ahead of their Singaporean counterparts in subjects like Maths, the Sciences and Chinese. What they really need to brush up on is their English. They can devote almost all their time to English since they already have a certain level of competence in the other above-mentioned subjects. Thus, the foreign students usually top the class, leaving many local students behind academically.

The concerns voiced out by the parents in the article are that their children get demoralized by the extraordinary results produced by their foreign classmates. Some local students are even resigned to being second best to their foreign counterparts. But I want to say that kids nowadays are quite pampered. They cannot face adversities unlike foreigners, who have to leave home at a young age just to study. What these Singaporeans children do is to complain to their parents, hoping someone will do something for them. A word of advice is for students to work even harder and have a more positive attitude when studying.

The presence of foreign students not only impacts the education scene but also the society.

For one, the economy on the whole will gain from these foreign students. To receive an education here, the latter has to pay more expensive school fees compared to his Singaporean classmates. These foreigners also have to find lodging if they have no relatives here. Some of them study in international schools or very top government institutions, which require more funds. All these money enter the economy because of them.

Secondly, the proportion of foreigners increase, making this society more multi-cultural than it already was. It exposes Singaporeans to a diverse mix of people but there exists a potential for cultural tensions to occur.

Usually, these foreign students are already very talented in their own way. Add in the long time that they have been here in Singapore since their primary or secondary school years, and they may just stay here for good. Their long stay in Singapore may prompt them to be loyal to her, and be recruited as foreign talent.

Regarding this issue, there are two sides to it. For the economy as a whole, workers will be more skilled and production can increase. The labour market will also be more competitive, resulting in the cream of the crop working in the best companies, thus boosting our economy. However, on an individual level, stiffer competition is bad news as they cannot find jobs easily. This may lead to a biased opinion of foreigners. I would like to add, though, that this competition should spur locals to perform even better.

All in all, when foreign students arrive, everything around them is a blur initially. They face several problems, like climate and language barriers. These mentioned difficulties are usually evident in people who are not near Singapore geographically. So let us not make life hard for these people whom we should actually welcome with open arms for coming to our beautiful garden city!

An IntroducXn

2007-03-24T19:17:00.000+08:00

Hello people, this is Vanessa Chew Wen Li from class 18/07.

I was from Zhonghua Secondary School and have been at AJC since the start of 2007. My CCA is tennis. I like to play sports like soccer and badminton, but usually do not have the stamina and physical fitness to match very vigorous activities.

I study Mathematics, Chemistry and Economics at H2 level and Geography at H1. Among the four subjects, I am best at Mathematics. I also take English, Project Work and Chinese, like most students.

Whenever I am free, after completing my homework and the like, I will try to exercise as it makes me fitter and healthier. But if I have just had my meal, alternatives would be to surf the Net, read a book, or just slack somewhere in a corner.

I am not particularly good with my right brain. Not exactly adept at visual art, I was lucky to pass the subject in Secondary Two. Regarding musical instruments, I play only the piano. And even then, I am of Grade 3 standard. Besides that, I know virtually no other instruments.

As mentioned earlier, I like to play sports but perhaps a lack of people to play with meant I exercised very little. The end result was I reached a high of 72 kilograms in Secondary Two. My parents knocked some sense in me and made me realize this horrific truth. And yes, today I am proud to say I have lost some weight.

“When one door closes, another opens”. These may be very common words in one’s everyday life, but it is very important to people who are facing a rough patch. My interpretation is that when one phase of one’s life is over, another starts. This is especially true now for me as I am into my junior college life. It is time to meet new people, have deeper insights and a more mature mind and body to look to the future!