what roles do the arts play in singapore? how important are these roles?

in the passage, Chua mentioned that, "art is a forum for people to come together and share an experience".
another role would be what Chua had mentioned in the passage, that, "arts is a pressure valve; art is bread for society's soul; art is the grindstone for a society's intellectual sharpness" in singapore's context, an example would be our very own production, 881 and the 12 lotus. in the movies, they depict the lifes of 'getai' singers. it kind of keep our 'getai' tradition alive, bread for our society's soul. before the movie was produced, teenagers were not very sure what 'getai' was about. after the movie was produced, some teenagers became more interested in 'getai'. allowing the tradition for 'getai' to continue, thus the production of such a art production becomes bread for our society's soul.
this role is quite important because it keeps our tradition alive. where people will still be able to feel the rich cultural heritage even after a long time.

What roles do the Arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?

The roles that the Arts play in Singapore are not the ‘leads’ but they are still important in facilitating overall success in all fields.
The Arts is a broad subdivision of culture, composed of many expressive disciplines. In modern usage, it is a term broader than "art", which usually means the visual arts (comprising fine art, decorative art, and crafts). The Arts encompass visual arts, performing arts, language arts, culinary arts, and physical arts.

As mentioned in the passage, there is ‘creative discontentment’. As such, in Singapore, they play the role of bringing up common problems that are faced my Singaporeans at home, school. The problems are reflected in the films produced. For example, local film director Jack Neo produces movies like I Not Stupid and Money Not Enough to address societal issues. I Not Stupid revolves around students, academics and family relationships. Money Not enough depicted the economic stress on the average Singaporean. The best part about the films is that the the situations are very real. Audiences regardless of age would be able to identify with the movie. They can learn from the movie and see from other perspectives.

Another role that the Arts play in Singapore is that it neutralizes Science, allowing people to appreciate creativity and to make sense out of something that defies science and logic. It is also a platform for people to showcase their talents that have nothing to do with numbers and equations. Schools like Nan Yang Academy of Fine Arts breeds Sinagpore’s artistic talent pool. These people include fashion designers; interior designers etcetera and they will play a part in contributing to the growing economy.

These roles as mentioned are important as they are flexible enough involve everyone in society. The films not only contribute positively to the economy, it also educates its audience. For a person to be successful it is important for he or she has to be well balanced. Meaning having the ability to understand science and math but also not forgetting appreciating arts which shows how deep a person can. Arts are an interactive and abstract field and it cannot be achieved by ‘memorizing and practicing’. Arts should therefore be promoted and not undermined to be of less importance compared to math, science and technology.

Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with

I only partly agree with the solution Ravi Veloo presented with regards to the talent shortage in Singapore because I am sure that some people, if they are unhappy with their present jobs will want to venture into other various economic fields of interest. Not acting on this want could be due to other reasons and not solely because they think they do not have the talent to ensure their success.

I partly agree with him because a Singaporean’s definition of talent is rather narrow and not many Singaporeans would then be considered ‘talented’. In today’s world, talent is no longer seen as just an aptitude in some area, like playing the piano superbly etcetera. Looking at the business and entrepreneur sector, all the top rung people are ‘talented’ in the sense that, they are creative and can think out of the box. Furthermore, they are sharp and can exercise critical thinking. These are actually skills that can be honed into people hence by changing people’s mindset they might be more inclined to try harder and think better of themselves. In turn, they will think more creatively and Singapore will become more ‘talented’ as more ideas flourish.

On the other hand, I disagree because not all Singaporeans actually believe that they are not talented. But the given situation at home may not be suitable for them to actually work on their talents.

For example, if an individual wants to change from a teacher and try out interior design as a new profession because he or she is good at art but is held back because of the risks involved. At the age of 43, he or she has financial commitments such as providing for parents who have retired as well as the bringing up of children and if the switch turns out a complete failure, there would be serious implications. Besides financial commitments, there are also parental expectations to meet. An individual may not be in a job that he really wants. For example, he or she has to continue running his father’s business instead of perusing his dream of being a doctor.

As such, I can conclude that the author’s solution would only be successful to a certain extent. It does not affect every individual Singaporean but still, it could be the first step to enlarging Singapore’s talent pool.

Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with

I only partly agree with the solution Ravi Veloo presented with regards to the talent shortage in Singapore because I am sure that some people, if they are unhappy with their present jobs will want to venture into other various economic fields of interest. Not acting on this want could be due to other reasons and not solely because they think they do not have the talent to ensure their success.

I partly agree with him because a Singaporean’s definition of talent is rather narrow and not many Singaporeans would then be considered ‘talented’. In today’s world, talent is no longer seen as just an aptitude in some area, like playing the piano superbly etcetera. Looking at the business and entrepreneur sector, all the top rung people are ‘talented’ in the sense that, they are creative and can think out of the box. Furthermore, they are sharp and can exercise critical thinking. These are actually skills that can be honed into people hence by changing people’s mindset they might be more inclined to try harder and think better of themselves. In turn, they will think more creatively and Singapore will become more ‘talented’ as more ideas flourish.

On the other hand, I disagree because not all Singaporeans actually believe that they are not talented. But the given situation at home may not be suitable for them to actually work on their talents.

For example, if an individual wants to change from a teacher and try out interior design as a new profession because he or she is good at art but is held back because of the risks involved. At the age of 43, he or she has financial commitments such as providing for parents who have retired as well as the bringing up of children and if the switch turns out a complete failure, there would be serious implications. Besides financial commitments, there are also parental expectations to meet. An individual may not be in a job that he really wants. For example, he or she has to continue running his father’s business instead of perusing his dream of being a doctor.

As such, I can conclude that the author’s solution would only be successful to a certain extent. It does not affect every individual Singaporean but still, it could be the first step to enlarging Singapore’s talent pool.

In my frank opinion, I think that Singapore predominantly uses extrinsic motivation. In today’s context, students strive to do well in their studies mainly due to financial factors rather than their own interests. Attractive incentives await those who do well among their cohort and good pay packages are in place for those who graduate from good universities. It is widely known that these are the main driving factors for ordinary students to work hard and perform the extraordinary. The financial attraction from a high paying job will greatly outdo the want and interests of these students. A quick google for the term “scholarships” will return a total of 28.8 million results in less than a second. The impact on the Singaporean society is great. It has transformed innocent minds into monsters whose eyes glow at the sight of money. It is a waste as they will not be true innocent childhood but a childhood aimed at gaining more money in their adult lives. It spoils the child’s development as a whole and contributes to a weaker but more financially driven society in the future.

As the article stated, the Health Minister proposed a market whereby human organs will be traded freely for financial incentives. As debated in parliament, the Members of Parliament are debating whether human organ trading should be due to intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Another debate is the moral issue behind human organ trading. It was argued that allowing sale, which is an extrinsic factor, would mean that more transplants will occur and thus, more lives will be saved. However, allowing the sale would also mean that the poorer patients would be unable to buy an organ and be condemned to eternal failure at getting an organ. Their healthy counterparts would then sell their organs to raise money which might be used to fund some undesirable activities such as drugs consuming, prostitution or gambling. From a society point of view, it is also wrong to sell what god gave us, and wrong to sell what our parents gave us at birth. The impact on the poor would be a rush to sell their organs to get fast cash, while the rich, will gain from this and are now able to now get a transplant at a quicker time. It might seem as a win-win situation. Allowing the poor to sell their organs is akin to giving the poor a fish and allowing him to survive for a day. It is more instrumental to impart practical skills so that the man can be fed for life.

Kenneth argued that Singaporeans do not litter not because they want to keep the streets clean but because they want to avoid the hefty fine. I, for one, disagree on this point. I am socially aware and I really wish to keep the place clean and green. I believe that there are many other likeminded Singaporeans out there who do not litter not for the sake of the fines placed but because they want to keep the place they call ‘home’ clean. This is actually an intrinsic factor rather an extrinsic one.

In conclusion, it is apparent that Singapore is a society driven on extrinsic factors while there are some instances whereby it is based upon intrinsic factors. This spoils our society as it devours the place of feelings and warmth.

Discuss the importance of religion in society today. (2004)

For most people, regardless of location on the earth, religion or worship makes up a significant portion of not only their being, but their society or culture as well. How any individual defines religion can vary dramatically based on not only their personal beliefs, but their cultural views as well.

Religion forms a critical aspect of the entire global population. While certain religions factions are responsible for many of our wars or disagreements, in general, religious beliefs offer people something to hold onto in times of trouble or indecision. The idea that a higher being is at work in the universe is comforting for many and creates a placating effect.

Most religions have a ruling doctrine or book of some kind. Be it the Koran, the Bible, or the Talmud, these books offer instructions or guidelines for living life that are often similar. Reaching out to those in need, taking time to reflect on the goodness of the world around us and offering kindness rather than animosity seems to be common themes throughout many religions.

Religion has its place in the world. Not only does it encourage civilized, friendly behavior among one group of followers and another, it also offers individuals a chance to strive toward something. Having a goal is crucial to finding satisfaction in life. Religions offer guidelines and requirements designed to lead followers toward better lives and ultimately, better afterlives.

The presence of religion also offers evidence that someone or something is watching our actions making us accountable for all that we do in life. A life lived well is often rewarded, while too many mistakes and unapologetic actions will be punished. Believers of any faith would also offer the most positive aspect of all – religion offers life a greater meaning and purpose. We were not placed on earth to drift mindlessly, but to fulfill both small and large missions as set forth by whatever doctrine we adhere to.

As such, we religion is important in today’s society because it’s a tool that reaches out to people on a more individual level. Furthermore, a society is made up people and the characteristics of a society are formed by what its people believe in and their way of life. Religion plays an important role in this aspect. it creates a platform for people to rely on emotionally as well as learn to lead life as a better person from day to day. If people are inculcated with the right morals, society and the world would be a safer, better place.

Do you think human rights are universal?

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

I feel that human rights are universal in the sense that these rights are what every human being would want to have. However they are also not universal if you look at each right in specifics. Not all human rights are universal. For example, the right to freedom of expression is allowed in both democratic countries like America and Singapore. However, it’s evident that freedom of expression is more explicitly shown in America and not that promoted in Singapore. Hence, human rights are only universal to a certain extent.
Everyone in the world has the right to education but many of the poor in Africa, India and other third world countries do not receive education they rightly deserve. Hence, it can be seen that the right to education is universal meaning no one should be denied it. However, in the third world countries, their current situation does not allow them to have access to education making the right to education all in all in not universal.

It was mentioned in the passage that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. Hence, in Singapore’s context, where social and economic rights take precedence over civil and political rights, there will be certain human rights that may be compromised along the way. Furthermore, Singapore’s historical-cultural legacies interpret human rights with a communitarian emphasis and primacy of duty to community over individual rights. For example, people have the right of freedom of expression in Singapore but if this right was really practiced, racism would be strife and ‘duty to community’ which would take the form of preserving social stability would not be done.

In conclusion, human rights are generally not universal. Some human rights, like the right to education, work and food are rights that involve everyone. It does not involve sensitive issues such as race and religion. However, in today’s world there are people who are denied such rights. Also, human rights such as freedom of expression are sensitive to each country’s social structure. Though everyone has the right to freedom of expression, it cannot be helped that governments want to hamper the popularity growth of such rights as it might cause social instability.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In an ideal world, countries should live as you would with your neighbours, in peace with one another and most of all refraining from being nosy. This is certainly a trait; you and I would appreciate from our next door HDB or condo dwellers. However, should the usually happy and normal family one day, be invaded by one other dastardly neighbour, who start committing the most heinous of acts like rape, pillaging and general destruction, would you think to yourself : “Hmmmmm.......is it right for me to become involved in my neighbour’s “internal affairs” ????

Surely not!!! I hope. As rightly quoted, by Mr Mahbubani, the world and specifically the US and the EU to a greater extent, being immediate neighbours, I quote, “...failed to take moral responsibility for their actions....” referring to both cases of Iraq and Yugoslavia. I however, find it ironic that Mr Mahbubani should refer to these powerful countries’ “actions.” For the case of Yugoslavia, it was instead a case of non-action and if there were any at all, these were far too weak and indecisive. This resulted in unchecked “ethnic cleansing” and genocide that till today, remains a deep black patch in our recent history. Countless Bosnian victims including 3,500 children perished under Serbian sniper fire. Over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s." I understand that the then “Snr” US President George Bush, failed to take action, and it was his successor, Bill Clinton, who mobilised Nato, to finally stop, the key perpetrator, Slobodan Milosevic.

While not fully relevant, it is not the totally the case of dastardly neighbours for Yugoslavia, but perhaps the grandfather of our neighbouring household that perpetrates evil acts against his own family. One should still take moral action, although, it is the neighbour’s own internal affairs. In the political landscape of the world, a country can seek help and bring attention of wrongs committed to the United Nations and the Security Council who are basically the equivalent of our neighbourhood police. They are tasked to maintain the peace and security in the neighbourhood, i.e. world. But in a less than perfect world, we know the police are not perfect (even Mas Selamat can escape).

This brings us to the case of Iraq. We have a situation where a country or neighbour, has failed to behave. The father of this family has killed many of his own children, whom he decided he did not like. The then president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003 had gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believed he must rule with an iron fist to keep his country, which is divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions showed that he was a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him, even using deadly and outlawed chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels. Then in 1990, he ordered the invasion of Kuwait. This time the, US acted swiftly in concert, in the world’s first Gulf War and Saddam was beaten back. In more recent history, Iraq was invaded by US and UK forces on now an apparent lack of evidence. This is a case of accusing an evil neighbour of keeping and planning to use a dangerous “long rifle” that is prohibited and against the law. The only “sight” of this “long rifle” have in fact been Saddam’s pool stick that always remain draped, since he dropped the hobby. However, one of the more powerful police officers then decide that they needed to bring him to justice claiming that the pool stick is actually a potential murder weapon that is actually a rifle. With Saddam eliminated, the saga of Iraq continues, and the police officers are still unable to bring peace to this household, where Saddam in fact has many wives(i.e.the Sunnis and the Shiites) holding differing views of who among them should be in charge of the Saddam household.

The conclusion is that the world must react fast to blatant crimes against humanity, slow against weak and politically motivated evidences. For Myanmar, this is a case of a “mixed bag.” The head of this neighbour’s household, runs the family with an iron hand, but with rich natural resources that aid in self sufficiency, they are still surviving although the majority of the western part of the neighbourhood does not have any relationship with them. Their immediate neighbours however, like Singapore as a part of Asean continue to persuade, interact and hope that Myanmar will change.

dealing with the outflow of talent in Singapore

Loh also raised a 3-fold solution. 1) The authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”. “It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”2) “forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”3) And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtshipsand friendships were embedded.”

The first part of the solution is definably feasible. Over the past few years, the hype over foreign talent has generated much dissatisfaction amongst the local. People adopted the perception that foreign talents are far superior then them. By removing such terms, it appeals to the Singaporeans and make them feel wanted. It shows their talent is appreciated in the Singapore society too.

The second fold of the solution has its limitation. The development of technology allows long distance communication between kinds. Tools such as the telephone and even webcam are mediums between the family and the member aboard. Thus, this part of the solution is not applicable.

The third fold of the idea largely appeals to the more emotional Singaporeans. Retaining such buildings create a homely and familiar environment for Singapore to settle in. However, the opportunity cost for such a policy may prove costly. Are the economic costs of the land worth it? The land may be better allocated for better uses. Land scarcity is a pressing problem of the island. Thus we should measure such costs before embarking.

The author also mentions that materialistic incentives may help to retain local talents too. Such form of extrinsic motivation would prove effective in the short term. Money to bait local talent would no doubt prove effective. However, we must consider intrinsic motive of the talents. Would they abandon Singapore during an economic turmoil? Hence extrinsic motivation is effective only on the surface

Are Human Rights Universal?

Human Rights have been formally defined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It consists of 30 different articles which covers different aspects of human rights. However, the articles serve as a guideline for countries and they need not adhere to the settings. Some rules may not be suitable for the society and thus, not all articles of the universal declaration of human rights are universal.Some of the articles go against long traditions and religious beliefs, thus not making it universal. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a Muslim attempted to convert in a Christian but had her case rejected over and over again. The incident created a surge of unhappiness amongst the population. Another example is Communism; the Marxist system which countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea have adopted, goes against article number eight which states that ‘Democracy’ is part of a human’s right. As such, it is impossible to bind them to the article as the rule applies only to democratic systems. Thus, I believe that human rights are not universal.Also, human rights are not universal in Singapore’s context. Singapore is a multi-racial society and sensitive topics must be avoided in order to preserve harmony. The government has no choice but to censor sensitive issues which might fan the flames of racism. As a result, the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech is deprived. This is essential to Singapore’s society though it may not be as important in another country's context. Thus, the human rights are not universal as it is inapplicable in such a environment.

‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?

There is no true gauge to accurately measure the rights of women and men. However, we can approximately say that women have largely acheived the equal rights as men. Old catch phrases such as ‘A women’s place is in the home’ has been out of context of this modern society. therefore, i will have to disagree with the statement as women are already enjoying the same rights as men.
Women living in the world know have equal rights as men. They can vote, have the opporturnity to study, fair chance at workplaces. They is no basis in which we can say that women will never enjoy the same rights. futhermore, we are seeing that women's rights are progessing as times progress. women have achieved such rights as mentioned above. Thus why cant we project that women would continue their march to achieve equal rights or mayb even better rights then men.

However, it is dissapointing to see the rate of progress developing countries are going. women in such countries have yet to achieve and adequate standard of rights as compared to the men. For example, India's long tradition of favouring boys leads to neglince of the girl and often abortions. thus the scenario in paragraph are only seened in developed countries

Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation

Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?



Singapore uses extrinsic motivation more than intrinsic motivation. This is not only seen in the economic sector, but policies on education, family and etc and mostly based on such motivations. Intrinsic motivation may not be as powerful as the opposite as the the value of purpose and experience are often diminished in such a materialistic enviroment. As such, policies have proven to be effective because of the persuasive power of money. In the short term, extrinsic motivation are more effective. However, in the long run, extrinsic movitation are more harmful than benificial.



Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile.

For example, Singapore places monetary rewards for students who excel in the academic performance. Such baits for students may boost the standard of students. However, it moulds them into a materialistic worker whose motivation is only money. Study should be for knowledge and not for wealth.

However, extrinsic motivation may not work at sometime where intrinsic motivation may work. For example, the goverment provides incentives for people to have children, But, The monetary incentives have not proved to be effective. On the other hand, when the goverment was discouraging having large families, its emphasised on intrinsic motivation which was successful till the extent that it had to be reversed. Thus i feel that singapore is dominated by extrinsic values and its is onli effective for short run purposes.

‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?

A right is defined as a legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups.

Firstly, I would like to make a point that women and men should not be compared in such a general manner. Both sexes are on earth for different purposes. However, if comparison should be needed, specific rights like voting and education can be examined in detail. In these 2 cases, women have already achieved both.

Women of today have yet to enjoy the same rights as man but improvements have been seen. For example, women are still not allowed the same pay as men who are of similar ranks to them in a workplace. The root of this problem is to society, a woman should be at home, taking care of children and not out there in the working world. The income difference maybe expected to serve as deterrence to women, encouraging them to remain a housewife. However, this mindset is starting to change. Vice versa, men are starting to accept the fact that they too, do play a role in bringing up and caring more for their children. This is a mindset problem that is gradually changing as the years go buy. Therefore, I disagree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men.
Another point is that women have already proven themselves capable to handle the intellectual demands both in politics and the workplace. Women are starting to appear one by one in parliaments and also take on major roles such a CEO of a company. For example, Fumiko Hayashi already a president of the BMW Company has been proposed to be president for the retailer Daiei. This is important for Japan as they have been rather against the idea of women working instead of remaining at home. Step by step, it is certain that equality of rights can be reached one day between men and women.

It may seem discouraging that even in developed countries like Japan are still experiencing a disparity in rights between men and women to the less developed countries but the important thing is that changes, though slow are underway and that the day when rights are equal between men and women is not very far.

are there circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?

Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
I beg to differ with Grace’s views. Although we only have one source of newspaper, we can still gain access to different news medium in the form of the internet and magazines like Newsweek and Time. Our human rights are not totally curtailed but our excess to the most mainstream news are slightly controlled for the good for the nation as a whole. Our nation’s stability and progress has shown that it is the right thing to do. By allowing total freedom of expression, it may result in more bane than boon! Also, there exists opposing voices in the parliament, that of opposing parties and thus, I feel that the people’s voice is and will be heard by our policymakers. Thus in this case, our freedom of expression is being curtailed but it is beneficial to us.

According to article 3 of the universal declaration of Human Rights, all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. However in Singapore, women are spared the pain of caning when found guilty of charges deserving of the corporal punishment. In this case, women are protected. Thus, human rights may be curtailed for the betterment of us. Thus, we should not resent.

The current hype over the environmental issue is unnecessary. DYA?

In the article “The Truth about the Environment”, several environmental issues were debunked and after reading this article, I feel that the current hype over environmental issues is slightly exaggerated but not totally unnecessary.
Firstly, it was widely thought that our natural resources are running low. However, the scarcity of natural resources is due to the rising costs of locating and extracting them. However, i feel that by realising this, it only tell us that the time to derive alternative sources is extended because it is a fact that our natural resources will one day be depleted.
Secondly, the Malthus claim got us worrying for the future. His claim was sound, human population growing geometrically whereas food production can only increase arithmetically, this will result in severe food shortages in the long run. However, this will only come true if the human population is indeed increasing geometrically. But the fact is, we are facing a declining birth rate where our population will one day reach a maximun of around 11 billion people.
Lastly, pollution is not as bad as once thought. It is stated that the air today is much cleaner than that of 1585.
Thus, all these show that the hype over environmental issues are a little exaggerated but because of this false alarm, the world is more concern about the well -being of Mother Earth, which is a good thing! =)

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society

From my point of view, I think Singapore is predominated motivated by extrinsic motivation. Based on my own understanding and interpretation, extrinsic motivation means needing someone to kick my butt in order for me to do something and intrinsic motivation means I initiated my own actions, without any incentive in doing so. Thus, from my own definitions, I can derive confidently that Singapore is extrinsically motivated! This is very evident in us being labeled as a garden city, being lauded for our low crime rates and also our smooth traffic. Oh and of course the success of our education!
Our low crime rates are due to the harsh and no-nonsense judiciary. Locals dare not mess around with the law due to the hefty punishments for all crimes, even minor ones. Likewise, foreigners dare not commit any crimes in Singapore too after realizing Singapore tough stance against crimes in the case of Australia’s Nguyen and US’s Michael Faye.
Also, Singaporeans do not litter not because they want to keep the streets clean but because they are aware of the hefty fines facing them. Imagine paying a fine of fifty bucks for a cigarette butt? The fifty bucks can buy the offender another four packs of cigarettes!
Students work hard in their studies and score some tremendous and astonishing results. But, the driving force to do well is always materialistic stuffs such as a new MP3 or the latest Sony game.
Thus I think Singapore is extrinsically motivated and this is detrimental as Singaporeans are not doing what they are doing because they understand the rationale behind it, but are doing it for the rewards or for not being punished. Students do not comprehend the importance of an education and are studying for the sake of it.

dealing with outflow of talent in singapore.

Loh raised a serious issue that has been around Singapore, which is the outflow of talent in Singapore. there are many reasons to this problem, to summarise it would be
1) to escape the stressful environment
2) they feel like their views are not being heard in singapore
3) they left the country to further their studies, thus would rather stay overseas
4) there are better job opportunites overseas
there can be other reasons, but those above are just a few of the main reasons

Loh also raised a 3-fold solution.
1) the authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”.
“It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”
2)“forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”
3)And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtships
and friendships were embedded.”

i agree with the first solution. it is quite irritating how the authorties place so much emphasise on these foreign talents. this makes the employess think that those foreigners are a notch higher than the locals, thus in a way stereotyping them, giving them more chances. being a singaporean, i would of course be unhappy.

the second solution seems a little weird though. If we dont actually have the love for the country, or the loyalty for the country, why would we even bother to stay. furthermore, with improving technologies, Skype, internet, we can easily contact out families and friends when we are overseas.

the third solution doesnt seem so good too. Singapore is known as a country which is always progressing. by preserving these buildings it would hinder our progress. these memories can be kept in photo albums, writing diaries and etc. just by preserving these buildings, would not prevent te outflow of talent.

i feel a more practical solution would be to provide adequate jobs for locals, and putting less emphasis on foreign TALENTS. also, would be to let the citizens be more heard. and of course to slow down our pace of life, since many of our talents are leaving because of singapore's stressful environment.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

From my point of view, countries really should not stick their noses into another country’s problems unless their help is seriously needed. But in recent times, countries intervened when they shouldn’t and when they should, they didn’t. This prompted me to infer that government intervention comes with a hidden agenda, sometimes not so hidden. In the case of Iraq, America invaded with intention of liberating ill-suffering Iraqis from the demonic but now-dead Saddam Hussein. Instead, it is reported that at least 650,000 innocent Iraqis ended up dead due to the invasion. So, was the invasion a sound decision by the Americans after all? Will the Iraqis be better off without the intrusion of the US? I think they will be.
Where were all the help when it matters most? Cyclone Nargis tore through Myanmar, taking along with it hundred of thousands of lives and stranding others to fight for their own survival. Why didn't countries pour into Myanmar with their aid? Some may argue that Myanmar's Juntas were resistive and cynical towards foreign help but why were other nations so concerned over the Junta's stand? Why didn't they just enter the countries with their aid? I'm sure countries can 'barge' into Myanmar on the account of human rights to aid those in need. After all, it is evident that other countries's aid can be very beneficial to the survival and reconstruction of a place devestated by natural disasters. Banda Aceh is one such example!
Thus, i am in favour of government intervention if help really can be rendered to those in need but i feel country should also be given the rights to solve their internal problems, but if they fall to do so, then they should allow others to do it for them. Unlike the old and stubborn Junta....

Education- Elitism

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Elitism in the context of education is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavour, with the other students being deemed less capable of achievement or as holding less promise for the society's future. For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for highly intelligent students in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.
I feel that formal education in Singapore does indeed breed elitism. Our education is based on meritocracy and thus, the best can climb the highest isn’t it? This is also why school rankings and cut-off points exists. Entry points and the ranking of schools are the reasons why elitism exists. Students from top-notch school feel a sense of superiority over students from other schools that are ranked lower. This will fester into despise and disregard and ultimately, disrespect. Elitists will think that what they do is always right and always the best as compared to those whom they presumed are weaker than them. This sort of education can indeed bring out the best of a student academically, but it will also result in developing a student with straight As but with zero humility and no EQ. So how do we measure the success of an education system? It is definitely not merely just academic results right? So yup, we have seen MOE abolished the Primary School streaming and this just shows that our government is realizing the problems of our education.

Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Sinagapore?

In the second article, it is stated that ‘a belief that the backward-ballcapped guy slumped in the back row of class are going to have attitude problems’. This shows that professors may discriminate and judge their students based on their appearance, perhaps, it may also mean that one’s abilities may be judged solely by their appearances. Is this fair?
From my point of view, I definitely feel that this is not fair but I am aware that this problem is affecting my country too. It is a sad fact that Singaporeans judge people by their appearances. Referencing from an online article by Singaporean Kelvin Tan, http://www.geocities.com/kelvintan73/articles/racism.htm, it is stated that ‘If you visit Bugis station on Sundays, you will see that many Indians spend their day off in the popular haunt, Serangoon Road. There would be some mobile railings segregating them from the rest of us, and the way the MRT staff shout at them or the expression in their faces, I was surprised to see that they were smiling at us now.’ This shows that Singaporeans, especially Chinese, discriminate against those of another skin colour, condemning them to be unfit to be near us. I feel this is embarrassing. I thought we were a multiracial society where all races were thought to live harmoniously with one another? After this stunning revelation by Mr Kelvin, I think we can all conclude that Singapore still has a long way to go before all races can live together harmoniously.
Worst still, racial discrimination is not the only form of discrimination in Singapore; there are still ageism and elitism present in Singapore. The old, despite their wealth of experience are finding it more and more difficult to hold on to their jobs or find another one. Also, there is a growing number of teenagers who think too highly of themselves, one example will be overly-outspoken RJC student Wee Shumin. These do not bode well for the future of Singapore. Imagine a country whose citizens avoid the aged like the plague and ostracized those they think are weaker than them?? It is a recipe for self-destruction!

does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?

as stated in article 2 by Batz, 'most people would say, "what, me discriminate?'" yet plenty of people perceive that others are bring discrimnatory towards them"

i agree with Batz, many people would think that they would not discriminate, but they dont realise that they are actually discriminating by 'default'.

'by default' could mean how racism becomes routine. whereby how we accept our home's computer settings by default and that these setting are standard and should be accepted.

this default setting is like set in our heads, whereby it is almost impossible to change our points of view because it is almose like we were brainwashed to think this way.

for example, Singapore has had a few advertisments about convicts. where they show a muscular man with tattoos all across his body, holding a knife. the first thought that comes to one's mind would be that he's going to do a crime. however, the next scene shows how the man is actually a chef working in a kitchen. thus it shows how it is natural that one discriminates, because it is impossible to get rid of the stereotypes in our minds.

thus i feel that discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore since stereotypes exists in everybody, this will not just happen in singapore, but all across the world.

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, which method do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What are the impacts on the Singapore society?

according to dictionary.com, extrinsic is being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences. whereas intrinsic means belonging to a thing by its very nature.

Singapore also known as a "fine" city. thus i feel that Singapore uses more of an extrinsic motivation. as Lim has mentioned, he mentioned that Singapore uses the bonus methods to encourage singaporeans to procreate. he mentioned the baby bonus method.Singapore also has many other methods like fining if one spits, litters, smokes indoors, etc. other than the 'punishment' methods, there are also the bonuses methods. for example, longer maternal leave so as to encourage procreation, and etc. thus it seems like singapore uses more of an extrinistic motivation.

for this kind of motivation. there are pros and cons.
beginning with cons, as mentioned in the article, many have felt that by providing the baby bonus to encourage pro creation, feels more of an invasion to privacy rather than a bonus. thus, by using this method, it could be restricting our human rights in some way.

however there are pros too. singapore is one of the only countries that uses caning as a form of punishment. it actually acts as a kind of deterrence to prevent crimes. this form of deterrence is useful because crime rates have significantly decreased. with the most significant as drug trafficking.

thus after weighing the pros and cons, i feel that this method is useful to a large extent, since 'cash bonuses and fines might be a far more efficient way to drive human behaviour than allowing people to decide based on their inner inclinations.'

What role do you think religion has to play in the public sphere in Singapore? Justify your stand.

i feel that although religion should not be playing a pig part in the public sphere. however, it is necessary that religion has to be involved in public sphere, and it must appeal to secular arguments.

since Singapore is a multi-racial country, religion would have to play a part in the public sphere, in one way or another. as said by Devan : "but in some respects, singapore is less strictly secular. the state helps to fund mosque building, and mission schools, for instance. suh compromises, can reassure the malays. especially after the seperation;or from the pragmatic public policy considerations."
thus i feel that religion would have to be involved in the public sphere, because we should not be so rigid in our policy making. sometime, we would have to compromise to those other religions, to ensure there would be peace in the country. for example, in singapore, where our ministers make an effort to attend religious celebrations like hari raya, vesak day, deepavali. this shows how religion does have a part to play in the public sphere.

however, as Chua says, "in other words, religion may influence your viewpoint, but when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable, and accpetable to those of different faiths" thus i feel that religion cannot have every part to play in the public sphere. if it does, which religion should the political arena follow? it will not ever be possible, for the political arena to cater to every religion since all religion are not the same.

thus n conclusion, religion would have to play a part in the publi sphere but not a very big part.

are there circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?

human rights is defined as, fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.
human rights can be in the form of freedom of expression, voting, socio-economic rights, and many more.

from the first passage, in paragraph 1,2 and 3. it has mentioned that there are times where human rights can be curtailed. a few reasons include, "the primacy of duty to the community over human rights." and also, "we should co-operate with the leaders and also, leaders are expected to me dominant" and lastly, "restriction of rights is justified if it could provide prosperity and economic progress"

in the context of my country, this is very true, the government has done a good job in providing us with certain rights like education where rules are set to make sure everyone has a primary education. the government can also proudly say that it has improved singaporeans standard of living. the classic example would be how we improved from a fishing village to a urban country with obvious developments that can be seen everywhere.

however, i feel that our rights should not be totally curtailed. as seen in passage 2, "freedom of expression in singapore- is most commonly championed by human rights groups."

in sinagpore, we only have one source of newspapers which is from the singapore press holdings which is controlled by the temasek group is under the government. in this case singapore is kind of lacking in freedom of expression. since singapore is gradually progressing, we should start considering in our human rights. Whereby we should have freedom of speech, so that our voices can be heard and not have most of the decisions made by our government.

Study Hard

Hellos(:

Add some oil to the fuel and jiayou for all of ur upcoming promos!

GOGOGO!

See u peeps around!

(:

Do you think it is ever right for one country to be involved in the internal affairs of another?

In my opinion, i believe that a country should not be involved in the internal affairs of another unless there is strong humanitarian reason or permission for the countries to intervened in the business of another. Although the humanitarian factor maybe subjective, the motivation to embroil in foreign affairs are not of self-interest.



In my opinion, countries are entitled to the privacy of solving their own domestic issue. Afterall, thats the purpose of the elected constitution. The goverment should be given the chance to handled their internal affairs. However, World bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union are right to intervene if the situation is unable to be suppress by the goverment. For example, the cyclone nargis issue in Myanmar was getting out of hand, yet the military goverment persist on rejecting aids offered by the world bodies. As a result, an estimated 1.5 million burmese were unable to to recieve aid and were left suffering. This was due to the inability of the goverment to solve pressing issues, thus other countries should have the rights to recrify such problems instead. In such events, i believe that a country has a right to be involve in the internal affairs of another because of the inabiltity of the local goverment to solve the issue.


Humanitarian factors should also be considered when discussing the rights of intervention. Citizens may be suffering due to the inept of the goverment, yet they lack the rights and power to call for change. For example, the Tutsi in the rwanda genocides were being prosecuted by the majority hutus and the goverment. The UN was right to intervene but was not allowed to as the Rwanda goverment did not allow them to. As a result, an estimated 1 million people died in the civil war. As seen, countries are right to intervene in the affair of another country and it may provide aid and protection to the suppress citizens in the country.

Grace touched that the countries are right to intervene if only their methods of intervention are appropriate. For example, i believe that the americans were right to intervene in iraq as the Iraqis were suffering under the regime of Saddam Hussein. However, their method of intervention was wrong as it generated more casualties instead of solving the problem. Thus the countries are right to intervene if they can really help the other country.

do you think it is EVER right for one country to be invovled in the internal affairs of another?

i feel that countries can be right to be involved in other internal affairs of other countries, but they may not always be right to do so.

Countries like Mynmmar are really in need of help from other countries. It is the fact that they are so resistant to help from other countries that has made them more backward compared to other countries. thus maybe the way to helping Mynmmar would be not to force them to get help from us but maybe to change their mindset by showing them how other countries are more developed than before.

getting involved in another countries affairs can be in many forms like, how america was involved in iraq's affairs. i feel that this is not a very good way as it can be seen from the number of deaths, how it wasnt very sucessful. other countries could get involved maybe by offering useful advice on how to run the country, like turning democratic. another way to be involved can also be offering monetary help to the other country to break free from the vicious cycle.

thus it can be right for one country to be involved but depends on how involved the country would be.

no child left behind act of 2001

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a controversial United States federal law (Act of Congress) that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading.

NCLB is based on the belief that setting high expectations and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated.
the effectiveness can be in terms of measured results and in other ways like teaching methods. benefits include providing data which improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programmes, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college. it has also narrowed class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all. The Department of Education points to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math.

However, this could mean that teachers would manipulate the results or records to make it seem like there was an improvment.The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ creative reclassification of drop-outs. Also, NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test."

I feel that this act is beneficial to a certain extent. It makes sures that students walk out of school, a better, and smarter person. However, this will only happen with the co-operation of teachers. Teachers should still teach the whole syllabus and not only a certain part that is coming our for the test. Also, this act does not develop individuality but conformity. Maybe, the government could adapt singapore's style of syllabus, like project work which spur students to have a mind of their own and not conform to the masses.

Is formal education overvalued?

“Formal,” implies structure, organization, or a systemized approach that drives towards established objectives, whereas “informal” would imply the exact opposite, where matters are left entirely perhaps to the course of nature or lasse faire.

‘Education” is a process whereby an individual from childhood to adulthood undergo a developmental process within his or her society or environment, acquire the necessary skills and knowledge that will transform him or her into positive contributors, both socially and economically in his sphere of influence and existence.

There is value in formal education as it provides foundational literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge that is critical for intellectual development. These are the tools or the keys needed to open up, access and unlock the vast and limitless world of knowledge.

Few would and should dispute this point.

The question is therefore at what point and in what form of manifestations, does formal education become overvalued? In general, it is said to overvalued if
there are excessive pressure on the young causing a negative impact cited in first article
and when there are insufficient avenues to cater to “late developers”. The creative, the artistic who may not have any academic inclinations, but excel in sports, music or art.
. Rote learning and pure memorization power does not work in the new economy and this must be recognised by the relevant authorities to prepare our students towards a more diversed economy in the future.


Singapore has since been trying to change in many instances for the better. The Ministry of Education has been constantly luring people to turn to teaching as a profession with attractive incentives. The purpose of this is to increase the number of teachers to cope with the ever increasing amount of students and also to increase the teacher-student ratio and increase the quality of the education provided for the younger generation. The Ministry has also been developing the current curriculum and modifying it to include more broad-based activities. The focus is no longer entirely on academic-based programs but on an all round development of the student. This is a step to prepare the students for the future where they have to handle interpersonal relations on a day by day basis. From this two points above, it can be easily seen that formal education has got the needed basis for intellectual development and whether this can be fully utilised would be dependent upon the student and the amount of self effort that the individuals put in.

Singapore is a good example of diversified learning. It has a variety of schools catering to the different needs of the students. There is the Singapore Sports School, Nayang Academy for the Fine Arts , ITE, Polytechnics which provides a very diverse options for those who have different needs.

A simple study would be all it takes to identify the sky rocketing pressure present among students as young as 7 or as old as 24 in our current curriculum. Facing such extensive and excessive pressure in their studies, it is no wonder that many would crack. This is when the race for the degree comes in. Most entry level jobs now requires at least a Bachelor's degree. A career in performing arts or sports is not likely to be feasible in a market as small as Singapore. Most of us would be hired employees and would require that basic degree and would have to study hard and withstand the pressure put upon the students. With such heavy pressure on such young shoulders, formal education is said to be overvalued as skills are often overlooked and replaced by that wanted degree which may not teach the relevant skills for the job.

the current hype over environmental issues is unecassary. do you agree?

i disagree. from article one, "climate change is upon us, and it has arrived welll ahead of schedule. scientist's projections that seem dire a decade ago tuen out to have been unduly optimistic: the warming and the melting is occuring much faster than the model predicted. now truly terrifying feedback loops threaten to boost the rate of change exponentially, as the shift from white ice to blue water in the artic absorbs more sunlight and warming soils everywhere becme more biologically active, causing them to release their vast stores of Carbon into the air ." thus it shows that the hype over environmentall issues are necessary. Our earth is dying, with ice caps melting at top speed, countires staring to be submerged, like the recent mynmmar cyclone, temperature rising way above normal temperatures. what climate scientists have predicted for the future are more optimistic than it really is. it is NECESSARY to have this hype, or maybe an even bigger hype to save OUR earth.

in the fifth article, they mentioned that "yet a false perception of risk may be about to lead to errors more expensive even than controlling the emission of benzene at tyre plants. carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. the bet estimates are that the temperature will rise by 2-3 degress celsius in this century, causing considerable problems, almose exclusively in the developing world , at a total cost of 5000 billion dollars. getting rid of gloabal warming would thus seem to be a good idea. the question is whether the cure will actaully cost more than the ailment" i disagree with the author. the current hype over these environmental issues pushes us to help save the world and not like what the author have stated, waste money saving earth. it doesnt mean that if the solution is expnsive we should not continue with it. even if the solution cannot change much, like a few degrees celcius, it doesnt mean we should not continue with the solution. what we have are funds, if we are not even willing to pump in the funds to help save the earth, who is going to?

the authors raise several reasons why they think people today need exercise.do you agree with them?

The authors have raised several reasons to why people need exercise and have reduced exercising. The reasons include having a diet that is high in animal fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt, our home and working environments and an over reliance on medical technologies. I agree with the authors but I believe that are also emotional reasons too.

People need to exercise regardless of their diet and even more so if they have a very unhealthy diet. Diseases or sickness are often a result of an unhealthy lifestyle. Examples would include cancer and coronary heart diseases. These diseases could prove fatal or take a long time to treat. Medical expenses will be high and it brings additional unneeded stress on an individual and his or her family.

A person cannot remain healthy if he or she does not try thus people should also exercise regardless of his or her age. Vigorous physical activity helps in a child’s overall development so he or she reaches optimal size and necessary capacities when he or she reaches adulthood. Recent research shows that exercise can decrease the gathering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and cholesterol on artery walls of children and adults. Although there is no proof that exercise can make a person live longer, the elderly are still encouraged to exercise because exercise keeps them mentally alert, increases their speed of recuperation from illness or injury, strengthen their immune system just to name a few.

People living in today’s high tech world have begun living sedentary lifestyles that are very unhealthy because they usually exclude any form of physical activity. Adults and children alike spend most of their time in front of a computer either working or playing computer games. There’s still the television set in the living room, which constitutes yet another few hours of little or no physical activity. Prevention is better then cure and these people should start taking their health more seriously and understand the importance of exercising. Strenuous exercise is not needed but fun forms of exercise such as swimming and taking up a sport is encouraged. It is through exercise that people can develop and keep a strong self-image and a sense of emotional balance.

why has sport become globalized and more dominant?

the author mentioned that "the change in our attitude is symbolized by a profound change in the nature of the sport. Until about 20 years ago most people's experience of it was a team activity. Just like the individual, discipline rather than creativity, men rather than woman, compulsion rather than choice." this shows how sports has become more globalized over the years. It is able to change in this way because, "most cultural forms are limited in their ability to travel, most obvioulsy by the language, but sport has an extraordinary ability to communicate." thus through this special way where sports can communicate, it has become more globalized over the years. i agree with the author because it can communicate as there are many different kinds of sports events that require countries to go overseas to compete, in this way they are able to cross national frontiers and become more globalized by always improving from learning from other countries.

according to the author it has become more dominant because, people are putting more attention to sports. in terms of doing it and in terms of watching it. people are doing more sports to maintain healthy and "longer lifespans will increase people's desire to pursue a healthy lifestyle . the new physicality of looking good as well of feeling good" i agree with the author, in this era where everyone is more superficial where people go for brands, models wearing size zero with many wanting to look like them, people would want to do sports to get that kind of figure. Also, the author mentioned "many enjoy watching sports, because we like to see the supreme skill of those who act as the benchmark for the rest of us, combined with the excitement of not knowing who;s going to win, and no play, no rock concert can beat that." i agree with the author for example, during world cup, many like to it around and watch, just to crticise their playing to be amazed by their playing and especially from the sudden rush of excitment when someone scores a goal.

thus i agree with the aurthor that sports has become more globalized and more domainant.

AQ question 4: Morally right or wrong??

Harsh methods include torture and capital punishment. And for all the atrocities they have done, i believe it will always be morally right to mete out harsh methods on those criminals. After all, i believe in an eye for an eye.



Many will argue that the benefits derived through capital punishment is meagre and serve no purpose. Anti-capital punishment fools argues that the dead cannot be resurrected even if the culprit pay for his price with his life, so why cost another life? Some argue about the possibility of executing the wrong suspect and most absurdly, human rights organisations fighting for the criminals' rights to live. The commited a henious crime and if the judiciary deem their crime to be punishable only by death, i feel it is only fair. If they jeopardise others' rights to live, why should we spare a thought for these criminals' right to live? I strongly support the use of capital punishment. it will serve as a strong deterrent to discourage people from commiting a particular crime. An example will be drug trafficking. In Singapore, trafficking drugs in or out of Singapore is punishable by the death penalty. There has been a signicant fall in the number of drug trafficking cases in Singapore. Moreover, the value of human life is that of another's huamn life, no less. Thus, i strongly feel that capital punishment is morally right and should be encouraged in all countries.

is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

i feel that whether it can be justified depends on the situation.
in the case when the criminal has very important information that could save many lives but he refuses to say, torture can then be justified.
in the case when the criminal really has no clue about what we want to know, toture would then be unjustified.
however, when would we know whether the criminal has any clue at all?

for example the 9/11 incident. from the article, they mentioned, "but then think of 9/11, of the awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, and as your slide down the slippery slope, their screams(screams from the terrorists) may start to sound more like justice." torture is something that is inhumane, but if it is able to save lives, we may have secound thoughts whether it is really inhumane. another example would be the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture. (Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him. The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.) thus torture can be justifiable in this extreme cases.

according to the article, "it is morally prohibited, and it is also against international laws. when they pull out his fingernail and he doesnt say anything, do they find his child and start torturing the child?" It's very rare when you have this perfect situation where you know that a particular prisoner has information that's immediately useful. Torture turns out to be routinely unproductive. In domestic laws, we forbid confessions under duress in part because they almost never get to the truth. That same knowledge should be applied to our international conflicts. It demonstrates a huge lack of creativity and imagination in our intelligence agencies when they resort to torture. It goes very quickly to the abuse that was seen at Abu Ghraib. The interrogators wanted the prison guards to "soften up" the detainees, whether or not they knew anything. It's a very dangerous process.

thus torture CAN be justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists ONLY in certain cases.

Are You For or Against the Death Penalty

After seeing how crime has been kept under control in Singapore, I personally feel that the death penalty should continue to be implemented here and also around the world.

All 3 articles somewhat support the death penalty and their reason being the death penalty deters other murders from occurring. Countries like Europe have labelled the death penalty as barbaric but Europe has relatively low crime rates as compared to a country like America. How dire would the consequences be if America abolished the death penalty? Different countries have different society structures and require methods of crime management respective to their structures. Europe may think they do not need it but it has been tested and proven in America that the death penalty is indeed effective as a deterrence tool.

As mentioned, I agree with Mr. Gary S. Becker that capital punishment deters other murders but I disagree that it is the only reason. For the various murder cases that occur in many countries, were the families of the victims of murder repaid in any way? Not that I practice the ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ idea but I feel that when the death penalty is imposed on the offender, it’s not only a punishment but it also serves as a certain consolation to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, in countries that do not practice capital punishment, their worse punishment would therefore be life imprisonment. Some agreed that this punishment is better as the offender is forced to live his life in remorse, continuously feeling the guilt of what he has done. However, offenders who are about to commit murder would not consider this thought, as it is not as impactful as the thought of having to face death. It seems rational to think that if potential killers are aware that if they commit serious crimes they could be put to death for it, they are less likely to commit these crimes. Another strong point of this concept is the retribution and justice bestowed to society. The community demands a sense of closure that justice is served.

Suggest how the 5 goals of sentencing should work together in the modern society

Retribution is a call for punishment upon a perpetrator based on a felt need for vengeance.
Incapacitation seeks to protect innocent members of society from offenders who might do them harm.
Deterrence uses punishment to convince people that criminal activity is not worthwhile.
Rehabilitation seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behaviour.
Restoration is a sentencing goal that seeks to address this damage by making the victim and the community ‘whole’ again.

These 5 goals of sentencing form the basis of which different judges around the world decide on a suitable sentence for their individual cases. This is because, although each crime has it’s own degree of severity, all 5 sentencing goals can be applied.

Take for example, theft cases. These cases are very common and many are reported everyday. Both adults and youths commit this crime. Retribution would most probably be imprisonment in cells and homes respectively. Incapacitation is more specific about the imprisonment sentence. Some first time offenders might have curfews imposed on them instead of sending them straight to jail Deterrence depends on the age of the criminal. If it is a juvenile delinquent that committed the offence, both Specific and General deterrence could be practiced. He or she could be remorseful and learn from this experience and people in her age group are more aware of the consequences of such unlawful actions. Rehabilitation may include counselling. Restoration can help this people fit into society again like helping the offenders to find a job despite their criminal history.


Extreme cases like murder would of course be handled differently and much more seriously. The death penalty would be a considered by the judge handling this case. The rest would be somewhat similar to the above if the offender manages to escape the death penalty.

As such, it can be seen that the 5 goals of sentencing are linked and are currently reached. The only major difference between the different countries would be the use of capital punishment. Singapore and The US would be a very good contrast. This difference is important as it decides how the rest of the goals regarding this case are sort out. If the offender were to suffer the death penalty, then goals no. 4 and 5 would be unneeded.

The 5 goals are important in modern day society because they act as ‘checks’ on one another. A choice regarding the sentencing would lead to different rehabilitation and restoration methods. Also whether either specific or general deterrence if not both could be met.

With this 5 goals, I hope crime rates would decrease around the world because these 5 goals not only consists of proper punishment it also encompasses hope. Hope for the offenders, as they know that there is still help available in building their lives back up again. Hence, they in turn do not commit crime again. People around can also learn and see that it’s not worth it to commit crime and get into problems with the law.

discuss the effects of delay, uncertainty and ignorance on crime and the perception of justice

Delay, uncertainty and ignorance cause people to commit crime as they give people the false impression that they would be punished lightly or not at all. The perception that the juridical system is inefficient would also encourage people to turn to crime as punishment may not be meted out.In some countries, the jurisdictions may be ineffective and corrupted. Trials for minor offences often drag over a year or two. This delay provides courage for the criminal as they need not face the consequences immediately. Uncertainty is the odds of getting apprehended by the law enforcers, and the odds of getting behind the bars, on average, no more than three felonies out of a hundred results in an imprisonment. Moreover, ignorance of the system of the world often causes us to think that getting caught is difficult and getting acquitted is easier than getting jailed or punished. Delays, uncertainly and ignorance are all false perceptions conjured due to the poor juridical system. Ignorance is derived from the delay and uncertainty as they prove an impression that they could have a higher chance of getting away scot-free. For example, AJC students who play sports without P.E shirt often ignore the rules as they believe that their chances of getting caught by the P.E teachers are slim. This is a phenomenon conjured by the brain- Ignorance.Another reason for the increasing crime rate is due to the public perception of the justice system. If the justice system is weak and inefficient, people would dare to commit crimes as they could easily get away scot-free. On the other hand, a quick and strong system would deter people from committing crimes as their chances of getting is imprisoned is high. Thus we can see that the low rate of imprisonment due to poor justice system causes crime rates to increase. Ironically, high crime rates also causes low rate of imprisonment as the high number of trials may choke the entire jurisdiction, forcing for judges and law enforcers to acquit criminals and some even without a trial.Thus a transparent and effective juridical system is the only way to eliminate delay, uncertainty, ignorance and build a fearful view of justice which will deter people from committing crimes

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

I personally feel that the New Media is more boon than bane.


Free speech is the power bestowed onto the people and that bloggers and citizen journalists are increasingly shaping the global media agenda. An example provided is that during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Baghdad Blogger provided global audiences with a glimpse of what life was like for ordinary Iraqis stuck between an invading army and a brutal dictator. This enabled the world to understand and be able to have a perspective of what is happening.

Unlike the traditional media like newspapers where articles can be rejected to be publish by the editors if he or she deemed it as inappropriate, this new media allows people to have the power to post their opinions online without fear that it would be censor should they opted to posted it on paper. The internet not only makes possible a more engaging form of journalism, it also puts greater control in the hands of the audience as they are allow to draw their own conclusions as to their meaning. For instance, APBnews, which was founded in 1998, is recognised as a reliable source of crime news. Like other credible news source, this site provides a global audience with alternative journalistic voices to contrast the mainstream reporting of multinational commercial organisations.

However, this new power can also be a two-edged sword. The article “Countering the threat of self-radicalisation” stated that violent extremists can also make use of it to influence people and caused the country to be politically unstable. This shows that the new media can also be a threat to stability. For instance, in October 2005, two Singaporeans posted inflammatory racist and vicious remarks about Muslims and Malays on the Internet. With the current terrorism threats, there is a need for especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multi-cultural society. After all, this comments which resulted from the freedom of speech can sparked off social unrest and be a threat to stability.

To conclude:
With great power, come great responsibility.
With freedom of speech, come EVEN GREATER responsibility.

is there always a tendency to confuse punishment with revenge?

i agree with the author. Like the author had mentioned, "we often confuse punishing a criminal with revenge. Although the two are closely related, they have a difference."

"punishment is - or should be- a penalty imposed for violating the law, and is usually handed down by some authority."
"revenge on the other hand, is inflicting punishment, but usually by groups or individuals who do not have the authority to punish; it is generally the result of hatred rather than justice."

The difference would be that punishment is by some authority but revenge is not.
"the problem is that many times, even those allowed by the law to punish, do so out of vengeance." for example, the jury could judge a crime base on their own morals and not base on the law, thus sometimes, making the punishment more severe, turning it into vengeance.

"again, a crime can be so horrid that revenge is on everyone's mind and, as noted, this is understandable." for example, an eye for an eye. "how much effort we pour into hurting somebody else usually depends on how much hurt has been done to us. under such circumstances, we feel justified in saying that the person who had injured us got what he or she deserved." for example, when someone committed murder, we could punish the person by imprisoning the person. However, killing the murderer could be on some people's mind as some would want to exact vengeance.

Thus punishment and revenge can be easily confused as they are almost the same where there is the inflicting of punishment and the only difference would be that revenge is inflicting of punishment without an authority and it is linked more to one's feelings. Since everyone has feelings, punishment and revenge could be easily confused.

Often at times, we have to face this vast space we call home ourselves. Feelings tend to be overwhelming and people become stressed and unable to control their emotions. So, please take time out to care for the people around you, take some time to understand what they are going through. All this will make the world a better place to live in.

(:

New Media- Power to the people or threat to stabilty.

The vital characteristic that differentiates the new media from the traditional media is the censorship of information. The internet provides a forum for the people to voice out their views while providing a certain degree of anonymity. This characteristic proves to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows and promotes the freedom of speech. On the other hand, it could serve as a platform for propaganda and extremist remarks, which has the potential to breed anger and hatred in the society. I personally believe the true benefits of the new media is something difficult to harness, as there would propagandists and extremist taking advantage of the freedom to spread their radical ideas. All the ideas would only serve to distort and twist true information, straining the credibility of the new media. Thus in my opinion, the New media is more of a threat to the society than a power to the people.

The Internet often provides a false impression that our identity is anonymous on the web and remains anonymous. Thus, this encourages people to post irresponsible remarks that could fan social tensions. For example, a RJC student once criticized a person for not working hard enough on the web. Even till the extent of telling the person to get out of this genius'(Her) face. This show of elitism invoked a quite a small commotion. This type of remarks would stir dissatisfaction and tension between the elites and the average. Also, the internet allows extremist to spread their radical ideas and even as a function to carry out their attacks. 'The use of the Internet for terror purposes is not a new phenomenon. Even before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US, terrorists were exploiting the Internet for fund-raising, training and planning purposes. It is now primarily used for radicalization and recruitment purposes.'' We should be especially wary as the internet is popular with the younger generation, who are more gullible, are easily decepted in accepting these radical ideas. Thus extremist turn to the new media to breed a new generation of terrorist.

I agree with Dionne’s view that the internet could never be abolish due to its popularity. So instead of trying to destroy its existence, we should instead focus on how to modify it to suit our preference. For example, Indonesia has blocked access to pornography websites. We could adopt similar approach and censor inappropriate content on the internet.

In my previous post, I strongly object to freedom of speech due to its backlash. The new media is a form of freedom of speech, where people could simply say whatever they please, without any consequence. However, they fail to realize that whatever they say or post may harm or hurt the stability of the society. Thus I believe that the power of the new media could be enhanced with censorship. Otherwise, it would only be a threat to stability of the society.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

These 2 articles discussed about issues whether new media was a threat to stability or power to people. With the first article discussing about "the Internet- being the last hope for free press" and the second article about extremists making use of the Internet to "buy over" teens.

I agree with both articles. New media can be both a threat to stability and a kind of power to the people. in article one, it mentioned that the Internet has many different kinds of articles, articles from bloggers, articles from newspapers and also outlets like youtube for teenagers to vent their frustrations about the society. It also mentioned that "mistakes and biases in the MSM are exposed within hours or even minutes of an article’s release." Thus whether the Internet is a kind of power, depends on what kind of article it is. For example, Xiaxue vs. some professional journalist who is writing for the papers. The professional journalist should be able to provide a more fair judgement to a certain extent. Sometimes, the "newspapers repeatedly fail us, sometimes with tragic consequences, such as during the buildup to war in Iraq." We would then have to turn to the Internet to know the truths. Thus, the Internet can actually act as a kind of power during such circumstances like the Iraq war, where the public is denied of the truth.

However, the new media can also be a threat to stability like how article 2 mentioned. "The use of the Internet for terror purposes is not a new phenomenon. Even before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US, terrorists were exploiting the Internet for fund-raising, training and planning purposes. It is now primarily used for radicalisation and recruitment purposes." Thus, new media can actually "brainwash" the youths using this outlet( the Internet). Which then, the Internet becomes a threat to stability. "EXTREMISTS have even become adept in crafting their message to suit their target audience. Many terror websites are flashy and well-designed and feature visually arresting graphic content. Many also offer chatrooms, music videos and other features that are obviously targeted at a computer-savvy, media-saturated generation - namely, the young." as youths turn to Internet for entertainment or as an outlet for their frustrations, they stumble upon such materials and gets recruited to join the jihad movement.
For example, pornography, teens usually don't know about such materials, but they stumble upon pornography pop-ups, and they get addicted to pornography. Thus, Internet can actually be a threat to stability.

Whether it is a power or a threat to stability, it is something that cannot be easily measured. As what Dionne has mentioned in the previous post, "there are benefits of the Internet that affect everyone positively but as for now countering the negativities such as people who use the Internet to create chaos is the only thing any government can do". If the Internet is use the correct way, it can be a power to the people. Of course, we cannot ensure that everyone is going to use it the right way, thus maybe an independent community can act as a kind of watchdog to make sure that new media does not become a threat to stability.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

New media defined by dictionary.com is ‘any interactive media, esp. electronic mass media combined with computers’. In this case, we are looking more closely at the Internet. I agree that the Internet is indeed ‘power to the people’, but it only becomes a ‘threat to stability’ if people act on the various ideas without considering the consequences of their actions. The Internet is able to provide many different portals in which people can express themselves. Examples would include youtube, livejournal and blogger etcetra. Furthermore, there is no need to expose one’s true identity to express what he or she has got to say online. Yes, tracking is possible but it’s not an easy task and it will take a lot of time to track just one person on a global platform. Thus the Internet is indeed a powerful tool to not only to express one’s ideas or opinions but also spread them and attain support.

The two articles given hold different focal points with regards to New Media and Free Press.

In my opinion, both are valid. The first article by Mark Klempner says that the Internet though providing much junk known as cyberslime still has opinions, information or claims that are worth reading and thinking about. The people who post on the Internet can be broken down into several categories. For example, journalists, individuals who just gives criticism and opinions heard (students like us who have to do this for homework fall under this category) and extremists who are serious about making themselves. The major difference between these groups of people is that they express themselves in differing ways. Journalists have to be careful about how and what they are writing and thus they may not be writing what they really feel because their jobs are at stake. Individuals who express themselves using platforms like blogger do not have the intention of letting many people know what they really think. What they write about may be along the lines of passing comments. However, as compared to journalists these comments are true and come from the heart. The extremists from the third category are usually desperate to attain support for they think and thus may distort or exaggerate facts. Furthermore, they may use words of manipulation to convince the readers.

I’m not claiming that only the opinions of the individuals from the second category are reliable but people especially youths who form the most tech savvy generation should learn how to differentiate between truth and biased opinions on the Internet. No one is completely right and some degree of thinking must be done before accepting what he or she has said. If this is exercised then people would not act irrationally on the ideas that are presented on the Internet and cause social problems.

Yes, the Internet is currently used by the various terrorist extremists organizations to gather supporters and members and it falls under the ‘threat to stability’ category. Although this problem may not be solved on a short termed basis but the ideas and solutions the government has come up with to counter the organizations will work on the long run. Youths should be educated that not everything on the Internet is correct and they should also understand that reality and the virtual Internet are two different dimensions altogether.

Arguing or debating whether the Internet benefits or harm the society more is useless as I believe the Internet will always exists and even if the Internet was to be ‘destroyed’ or shut down in the future, there will always be people who have the technology to create another system similar to the internet. There are benefits of the Internet that affect everyone positively but as for now countering the negativities such as people who use the Internet to create chaos is the only thing any government can do.

While you guys are busy with schoolwork or your personal life, I would like you to put down whatever you're doing and focus on this picture and then think of the innocent who are involved in this global war. War against what, you might ask. At this time while you are reading this, many wars are going on around the world. The war against poverty, the war against pollution, the war against terrorism, the war towards independence, to name a few. Think for the innocent people hurt in these wars. May the lord be with them.

(:

10 Ideas That Are Changing the World: #7 Aging Gracefully

As time goes by, it is observed that in almost any developed country there is a trend of low birth rates and death rates. This means that aging populations are forming around the world with more and more people above 50 years old forming the majority of a country’s population.

The usual links a person would make towards an elderly population would be that there would be an increase in a country’s medical expenditure as more money has to be to be set aside for the welfare of its elderly and this leads to a decreases the country’s ability to invest in other aspects beneficial for the country’s future such as education. However, this article suggests otherwise.

This article suggests that the elderly (people over 50 years old by definition) can still contribute positively to the society. The article uses Japan as a case study and has evidence that agree that the elderly do not just exhaust a country’s finances. Examples of having high purchasing power show how they actually continue to contribute to a country’s economic growth. But fact remains that not everyone has the luxury of so much money at their disposal and many still depend on the government for subsidies for various things concerning their welfare. An example would be medical expenses. At this juncture I think that a long term solution would be to promote a healthy lifestyle among a country’s population. Many people in the working sector are usually absorbed in their work and neglect their health, resulting in health problems in the elderly years. Campaigns or advertisements reminding people to exercise or maintaining a balanced diet would help.

I agree and glad that more and more countries are gradually losing the “the elderly are burdens to society” mindset and are starting to see certain advantages of this situation. However, besides only thinking about how their wealth can contribute to the economy on a short term basis, I think that the elderly can contribute with something else, something so valuable that the youth or young people of today lack – experience,

The elderly have lived through more then half their lives and have many experiences unique to every individual that can become lessons for us. Their bodies may be deteriorating with age but I’m sure their mind is still as active as ever. They can provide essential advice to the leaders of today’s world on certain decisions or situations that they have been through themselves. History may not have to repeat itself.

10 Ideas That Are Changing The World: Reverse Radicalism

IN this article, several key issues on terrorism are highlighted; reasons on why people are attracted to join terrorist organisations, the push factors that see more people leaving such organisations and solutions to combat terrorism.

As revealed by former JI head of training unit, Nasir Abas, people join terrorist groups in search of fame, recognition and excitement. But there are some who join in search of a change in their lives. They want to play a part in moulding their futures. Abas was deeply troubled by the sufferings of his fellow Muslims at that point in time, and when given an opportunity to join the JI, he "found it very heroic, a dream come through" as he thought he could help relieve those sufferings.

However, people felt that reality just did not live up to their fantasy. There was no fame or prestige at all. A terrorist’s life, as acknowledged by Abas, was most of the time depressing. This deception fuel the decision to leave.
Another reason why some chose to leave is the practice of terrorist organisations. What they do is felt by the members to be morally and religiously wrong. In Abas’s case, he joined to change the world into a better and more peaceful place with lesser sufferings. He was not radicalized and was clearheaded about his religion’s teachings, and the countless bombings (he was indirectly involved in the 2002 Bali bombing) that took many innocents lives were against his religion. To Abas, it was “against the teachings of the Prophet”. Fed-up when his pleas to spare the innocents were ignored, he decided to call it quits. To him, the JI does not exist to create a better place for Muslims, and he is “tired of the lies”.

Solutions suggested by Abas to help counter terrorism include education, disengagement and counseling. By educating people, especially idealistic young adults, on the difference of their religious ideas and that of the organisation they follow. For example, the teachings of the Prophet bars Muslims from destroying places of worships but the JI bombed numerous churches on Christmas Eve 2000. Also, Abas believe we should try and disengage radicals, instead of trying to deradicalise them. Lastly, convicted terrorists should stand up and condemn terrorism, and send out a strong message to terrorist-wannabe that it is not as good as they think. Ex-terrorists like Abas should also step forward and lend a hand to fight terrorism. Their knowledge on the way terrorist organisations operate will be valuable and instrumental in defeating terrorism.