Blueberriliciously...

Research

2007-09-10T14:23:00.000+08:00

Globalisation of Culture - To what end?
- Economic Globalisation Invades Cultural Patterns
- Does Culture Matter for Globalisation?
- Cultural Imperialism? The Organisational Dimension of Cultural Globalisation
- Transnational Secular Ideologies Vs. Contemporary Cultural Globalisation

Sources:
http://www.yawningbread.org/
http://www.cpim.org/marxist/200002_marxist_culture_ss.htm
The Marxist
Volume: 16, No. 02
April-June 2000

Environment And Biodiversity, sustainable development

Indicators of Environment and Sustainable development - http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/936217-1115801208804/20486265/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment2003.pdf

Biodiversity and sustainable development - http://www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/news-sd-suplement-en.pdf

http://www.treatycouncil.org/section_21151113.htm

Terrorism and war
Talking about terrorism and war - http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,20-6055,00.html
The war on terrorism - http://www.academicinfo.net/terrorism.html
http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100383580

Teacher unaccountably terminated in Singapore

2007-09-10T14:17:00.000+08:00

Teacher unaccountably terminated
http://www.yawningbread.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 August 2007
MOE rejects about 100 relief teachers a year
By Jeremy Au Yong

Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew yesterday declined to be drawn into the subject of why playwright Alfian Sa'at was rejected as a relief teacher earlier this year.

However, said about 100 people, or roughly 3 per cent of 3,000 applicants, are turned down each year by the Ministry of Education (MOE).

The reasons for their rejection vary, though applicants may not be told specifically what these might be.

Why not? Why is it policy not to reveal reasons? What is the ministry trying to hide?

The topic was raised by two Nominated MPs - Ms Eunice Olsen and Mr Siew Kum Hong - who tabled questions related to Mr Alfian's case and MOE's criteria in hiring relief teachers.

In his reply, Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui declined to broach the details of Mr Alfian's application, saying it was not the appropriate place to do so: 'It is not appropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in this House.'

If the ministry takes the view that they shouldn't discuss individual cases in Parliament out of concerns for personal privacy, then at least they could have answered Alfian's direct query substantively when he wrote to them in May, and leave it to Alfian to publicise it if he wished.

After Mr Siew posed a supplementary question, RADM Lui responded: 'On Mr Alfian's case, I think the most appropriate thing to do would be for him to engage MOE directly and we can deal with the case on an individual basis.'

This was really too much. As most readers would know, Alfian did write to the ministry as soon as he was terminated, asking for a reason. It was the brick wall of an answer that he got (see the earlier article) which made his case so suspicious. For Lui to now suggest that he should "engage MOE directly" as if he had not, is most unbecoming.

Was Lui unaware that Alfian had written to his ministry already and gotten an opaque reply? If so, you could ask if Lui is incompetent. Or did Lui know that Alfian had already attempted to engage, but still chose to gave the two NMPs a misleading reply? If so, you have to ask if he was halfway to contempt of Parliament. [1]

Further on,
Asked what some of the typical reasons for rejecting applicants are, he replied: 'Some of them because the applicants do not meet the minimum education criteria. Or sometimes it is really because of a variety of reasons, for example, their past record, discipline cases and so on.'

He gave an outline of the criteria they look for in teachers: 'To be engaged as teachers, applicants need to have the requisite educational qualifications, an acceptable content mastery of subjects they intend to teach, and demonstrate the aptitude and a genuine passion for teaching.'

Well, Alfian had the requisite educational qualifications, but surely no one expects relief teachers to "demonstrate the aptitude and a genuine passion for teaching"? Was Lui attempting to obfuscate hiring for fulltime teaching positions with relief teaching?

He added: 'The values they hold and espouse are also an important consideration as they are important role models for our children.'

-- Straits Times, 28 August 2007, MOE rejects
about 100 relief teachers a year

The Straits Times' last paragraph may be the key. I had speculated before that Alfian was being shut out because he was outspoken on politics and gay issues (in Singapore it is impossible to be outspoken on gay issues without being political -- it comes with the terrain). This "role model" excuse that Lui referred to is notorious the world over for its handy use in discriminating against people you don't like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2007

I heard from Alfian Sa'at on 15 May 2007 that he had lost his relief teaching job. On receiving a telephone call from the Ministry of Education, his school terminated him at once. No reason was provided. That night, he was extremely upset and swore he would "get to the bottom of this".
Privately, I suspected it would be an uphill task, though I'm sure that he too was not so naïve as to think it would be an easy thing to achieve. All I could do was to encourage him to document every step of the process. Documentation has a power that is often underestimated.

I am glad that he has done so. You can see his exchange of letters with the Ministry of Education on his blog.

He tells of how his work had been much appreciated by East View Secondary School to the extent that they had asked him to confirm that he would be staying on for a few months more. Yet within hours of that, his head of department would tell him they had been told to terminate his contract. Alfian wrote, "When I queried him as to whether this was based on my performance in school, he assured me, in his own words, that 'professionally and pedagogically, we had no problems with you'."

They required such an immediate departure that the school was left scrambling to find another relief teacher with no notice. Midyear exams were approaching for the students; where exactly are our educators' priorities?

Perhaps it's only a neighbourhood school, not one that serves the children of the elite? As Alfian himself noted in an earlier blogpost, "Some of these classes have had up to four relief teachers in the space of half a year. Every new relief teacher .... also meant abandonment."

So what was the reason for terminating him? In reply to Alfian's letter to the Ministry, they wrote,

the Ministry of Education sets stringent criteria in the recruitment of relief teachers. This is understandably so when we strive to achieve a high standard in Education. With keen competition, this Ministry has an arduous task of considering each applicant based on several factors. MOE needs to determine which applicants most appropriately meet its organisational needs. In the registering of relief teachers, we look at each applicant in view of the specific requirements of the Ministry at the time, considering each application as a whole, on its own merit. While many capable candidates apply every year, only those that best meet the organisation's requirements will be considered for appointment.

109 words saying abosulutely nothing. No, I take that back. They do say something: "We don't want to tell you why."

And to cap it all, the letter from the Ministry ended by referring Alfian to their HR policies,

For more information on HR matters, please refer to our HR Online at http://intranet.moe.gov.sg/hr_online/circulars01.htm.

Did you notice that it was an intranet address, not accessible to the public? Isn't that being bloody helpful? Or intelligent? And we are paying how much to our ministers and civil servants?

* * * * *
Alfian is not an unknown quantity. He is a highly-regarded poet and playwright. However, in this instance, what comes to mind is the fact that he is also very outspoken about the marginalisation of Malays, and gays.

Both impinge on current government policies. But he is not an extremist by any stretch of the imagination, and it would be a sad day if we expected teachers to have no passionately-held opinions of their own. It would also be a very sad day if teachers did not inspire our students to have the courage of their convictions.

If the ministry's real reason for terminating his services was that he had been vocal about the marginalisation of Malays, then that act itself proves the complaint. It would also make an utter mockery of racial equality in Singapore.

More likely, he is being penalised for being gay. I say this because we in People Like Us have been hearing other similar cases where gay teachers have been shunted out or into dead-end non-teaching jobs. Each time, no reason is provided. But unlike Alfian, they have not documented their cases and made a public issue of their treatment.

In a way, we understand their situation. They needed a job. Perhaps they had families who depend on them, or loans to pay back. Going public would make things much harder. But I would speculate that it's precisely because the earlier cases have not gone public, that the witch-hunt continues. So I am personally glad that Alfian has demanded an explanation from the government.

If there is such a secret policy, how is that fair to the many gay men and women who invest years (and dollars) at university or the National Institute of Education preparing to be teachers, only to be denied the chance to fulfill their calling soon after joining the teaching service?

So hiring policies cannot be secret. But if the ministry lets it be known that they will discriminate against lesbians and gays, then people will no doubt ask: What about Goh Chok Tong's statement in July 2003 about not discriminating against openly gay civil servants? Alfian has been as open as they come, and the school had no problems with him. If Goh and the government does not want to be accused of bad faith in making such public statements in order to falsely entice people to join the civil service, then they had better come clean.

* * * * *
Once again, this shows how badly Singapore needs a Freedom of Information Act, such as the one that the UK has [1]. Such a law would oblige the government to provide substantive information -- not the opaque whitewash that the ministry gave Alfian -- in response to specific requests.

More and more developed countries are enacting such laws because they realise that good governance is not served by ministers and bureaucrats being able to hide what they are doing. With power must come accountability. If the public can be prevented from knowing how decisions are made or what policies are in effect, then all sorts of abusive -- and corrupt -- practices can fester.

How did this ministry award a contract to a company owned by the minister's brother-in-law?

We have stringent contract-awarding procedures in place, the spokesman will say, and all contracts so awarded would have been assessed by our in-house committee of experts to be the optimum among the offers received by us, an assessment based on checklists that have been rigourously developed so as to cover all relevant aspects of the project in question.

How much money did that statutory board promise the foreign university to entice them to set up here; what were the assumptions used in the business plan, and how were those assumptions assessed to be realistic?

What projections were made such that the maternity hospital ended up with more wards than they needed, eventually having to mothball some of them [2], while other hospitals were shortchanged on expansion such that they overflowed with patients, with emergency cases turned away?

Alfian's case is not an isolated issue. It points to a much larger weakness in governance in Singapore. Opacity is a potent tool for those who wish to oppress us. It denies citizens the information they need to judge for themselves how good the government is in its job, and whether they live up to their promises (e.g. non-discrimination). It allows them to hide mistakes that they have made. It gives them the power to do what they please to ordinary citizens, leaving the small guy with no recourse.

For the sake of those larger issues, we must take this case as far as we can. The government must not be allowed so easily to get away with it.

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

2007-09-05T20:40:00.000+08:00

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

There has been an increased emphasis on human rights and freedom especially in republican countries like the United Kingdom in this age of advancement. Hence, when same-sex marriage, which is a step further into a homosexual relationship, starts to surface in the society of the world, many carry the question of acceptation as it is a choice of freedom which brings about both positive and negative impacts.

Yes - a practical consideration
1. In most of the countries like Germany and France, where same-sex marriages are legalised, the parties involved in same sex marriages are forbidden to make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency. The hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to their families for medical decision. In some cases, contacting their family members would be a difficult task as most of them would have distanced themselves from them due to their limited acceptance of homosexuality. So, same-sex marriage is a practical condition so that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, is given equal freedom and choices.

2. The reason why people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality roots primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is contemptible and against the nature. And Constitutional government was established to ensure that powerless minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. So, simple discomfort is not a reasonable basis for disallowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism. So, like any other forms of discrimination, sexual discrimination should not be encouraged and thus, same-sex marriage is a practical consideration, given enough time for people to change their discriminatory thinking.

No - an impractical consideration
1. Many would refute that same-sex marriage defies the task of reproducing which nature assigned to humans as they believe that marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. It is true to a large extent that if same-sex marriage is legalised in many parts of the world, more homosexual couples would get married and there may be a decrease in birth rate as they are unable to reproduce with the same sex.
A decreasing birth rate has been a worry for many countries as it means an ageing population, which leads to many implications. Thus, same-sex marriages should not be practically considered in this age of globalisation.

2. Furthermore, if same-sex marriage is being practically considered and legalised in many countries with reserved and traditional values like China and Singapore, it will arouse a lot of dissatisfaction from the society of the world at large. The reason is that the practice of sexual discrimination is still prominent and it takes time to gradually change their reserved attitude and mindset.

The question of whether same-sex marriage is a practical consideration depends on the values and thinking of different individuals. To a large extent, same sex marriage is a practical consideration, as it will lead to total freedom and equality- even though it may arouse citizens' dissatisfaction and discontentment. Yet, in this age of globalisation and liberalisation, the subject matter is no longer as taboo as it was, and people are more open minded than ever. Moreover, to legalise such marriages would be a big step forward for the betterment of society, by rooting out sexual discrimination. Thus, authorities should consider such moves seriously in order to optimize the social welfare of all.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

2007-08-10T16:30:00.000+08:00

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

Poverty has been a persisting problem which exists as early as 300BC, the era where Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher who made the statement lived in. By that time, revolution, which is a significant and violent change in values that usually occurs in a short period of time, was already prominent, so to say about crime. These are mostly triggered by dissatisfaction of the citizens towards their live, thus feeling the need to change it. However, the origin of these negativities need not be poverty as this issue subjects to different individuals.

YES – poverty caused revolution and crime
1. When one’s in a dire state, blinded by financial problems and the urge to improve his living conditions, he would most probably be tempted to commit crimes such as theft to satisfy his needs and wants. At this stage, sacrificing his pride will no longer be prohibited for a man as he would be more burdened if he doesn’t do so. On the other hand, the upper class will not have such thoughts of breaking the law as they do not have the need to do so.
2. As followed by the previous point, when the urge to lift up one’s living conditions is huge, the helplessness will be greater too. Thus, there will be growing dissatisfaction towards government body. This is because the government is the one who can implement policies to help the financially disabled citizens, which means that that government is not fulfilling their job if there are a significant proportion of citizens living in difficult financial conditions. Like in Singapore, 30% of the lower class citizens are earning lesser and lesser, yet the Singapore government did not take their words to help the lower class citizens into action. In this circumstance, the poor may think that revolution – the fight against poverty in this case, is the best way out.

NO – Not poverty but other reasons caused revolution and crime
1. Poverty is not the only reason that causes one to commit crime and fight against the commonplace. When Aristotle made that sweeping statement on poverty, it is class discrimination that he was practicing. In any case, it is an undesirable practice. Why does it have to be the people of the lower class in the society to commit crimes and lead the revolution? Rich upper class people commit crimes too, especially crimes associated with greed because it’s a psychological effect where people will want more when given more. Take for example, the corruption case of the former CEO of NKF, TT. Durai in the year 2006. Due to greed, he laundered a lump sum of NKF’s fund without authorization. He was the CEO of NKF, one who had full and overflowing pockets but yet, his desire was overwhelming and it landed him in a lawsuit, reducing him to a bankrupt Singapore citizen.

In conclusion, I agree to a small extent that poverty causes crime and revolution. Without the lower class of the society, the economy would not be balanced. Moreover, poverty is and will not be the sole cause of crime and revolution as greed and the thrilling experience gained from committing a crime will also tempt one to break the law. Class discrimination thus, is deemed very unnecessary.

Research

2007-08-06T13:57:00.000+08:00

Lookism
Definition:
discrimination or prejudice based on a person's physical appearance.
Link: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_2.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/s_cullars/lookism.htm

Ageism
Definition:
1.discrimination against persons of a certain age group.
2.a tendency to regard older persons as debilitated, unworthy of attention, or unsuitable for employment.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/ageism.html

Disablism
Definition:
inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favour of people who are not disabled.
Link: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/disablism
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/closerlook/000947.html

Xenophobia
Definition:
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/paphar1.htm

June Hol Assignment

2007-07-03T20:37:00.000+08:00

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

Through the revolution of time, the theory of humanism evoked increased emphasis on one's freedom, especially the freedom of expression in the recent years. So, to be able to express at one's own free will has been a sensitive topic especially since the emergence of the media. The question on whether or not this freedom should be practised freely will depend on the eye of the beholder. Even though Singer's view of unrestricted free expression is amiable, Szilagyi's view of prioritising social responsbility before expressing strikes more coherence with the way Singapore's cosmopolitan society should work.

As what Singer believes, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive.,"We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock." This can be supported by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Thus, free expression strengthens sense of belonging to the country as the people can voice out their views and they will feel that they are part of the country as they have a say. Take for example, when individuals have different views on an article or reports, sources like online and newspaper forums will allow them to exchange ideas and if necessary, debate on them. This is also a way to foster social cohesion and a way to understand how different races or religions feel about different issues.

On the other hand, Singer's view of free expression has its ill effects too.
Applying it to Singapore's context, it is known that herculean amount of effort were required from the Singapore government to reach a state of racial harmony of what it is now. It is especially true when broad media was the culprit of increased racial tension which led to disputes among the races during the year 1964 and the existance of the fear of it to arise again. Think about it, without the Utusan Melayu (Malay Newspaper) which intentionally published the malay propaganda in the 1960s,would the Singaporean Malays be inflicted with the negative image of Singapore Government being anti-malay and would their unhappiness with the Chinese be aroused? This leads to the next point which discuss about the reason why Szilagyi’s view on sense of social responsibility should be adopted and more widely practiced than freedom of expression in Singapore.

The majority of parents and the school have been trying to instill sense of responsibility and positive moral values into the young through many different methods like character development programmes. This is necessary because there has to be a certain extent of sense of social responsibility, especially while publishing or broadcasting certain sensitive issues regarding different races and religions. In Feb 2006, the Danish and Norwegian newspapers published provocative cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad and raged the Muslims. They obviously had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. They simply wanted to make a statement about the extensive self-censorship that has developed within news media and artistic circles since the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2004. This shows the importance of being socially responsible while presenting the facts to the audience, especially of the media’s. Because the media is a powerful and influential source of information and many people rely on it. One inappropriately used word may lead to a grave misunderstanding by the audiences. If the media decides to be socially responsible and filter/censor out all the potential social-poison, the world would be a better place to live in.
Sense of social responsibility should be practiced especially in our multi-racial Singapore, where there were experiences of racial unhappiness among different races. Moreover, we can’t deny that social cohesion is fragile and racial difference is still a sensitive topic. More the more it is important to be socially responsible.

However, being socially responsible will mean that freedom of expression will be limited due to that fact that people should only express the right things at the right time. This denied the purpose of the media - presenting the facts. When certain facts are to be hid, the presented 'facts' might not be true anymore.

Well, making a choice between being able to express freely and being socially responsible while one expresses himself is not tough. It can’t be denied that a certain degree of freedom of expression is required to run a nation. If not, citizens’ dissatisfaction will certainly be aroused, leading to government failure.
But when this is applied to the multi-racial Singapore, there has to be a certain extent of sense of social responsibility as any racial or religious comments will spark off unhappiness. Freedom of expression should be practiced in consideration to the public's interest - whether or not this may cause dissatisfaction among different types of people.
In addition, Singapore government has been adopting policies of transparency, meritocracy and others which regulations clearly state that there is no depending factor on races as all races are equal.
So, I believe that Singapore should adopt Szilagyi’s view to run the country even though it would be optimal if Singapore can strike a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility.

*10.46pm*

Pro-choice & Pro-life

2007-05-15T14:24:00.000+08:00

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion.

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights.
The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.
Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States). Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong.

Research on Euthanasia

2007-05-15T13:57:00.000+08:00

Active euthanasia is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal in a presumably painless or minimally painful way, usually by lethal injection.
Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. It is legal in some nations, while in others it may be criminalized. Due to the gravity of the issue, strict restrictions and proceedings are enforced regardless of legal status.
Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of conflicting moral feelings both for the individual and between different cultures, ethnicities, religions and other groups.

Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals.
Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.

Example
Euthanasia is illegal in most states in the United States.
Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.
In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:
-the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she is unlikely to make a recovery;
-the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as a living will or the testimony of the family;
-the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.
For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:
-the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
death must be inevitable and drawing near;
-the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
-the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.

Dr. Kevorkian allegedly assisted only by attaching the individual to a device that he had made. The individual then pushed a button which released the drugs or chemicals that would end his or her own life. Two deaths were assisted by means of a device which employed a needle and delivered the euthanizing drugs mechanically through an IV. Kevorkian called it a "Thanatron" (death machine). Other patients were assisted by a device which employed a gas mask fed by a canister of carbon monoxide which was called "Mercitron" (mercy machine).

Reasons given FOR Voluntary Euthanasia:
1) Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
2) Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
3) Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists.
4) Moral: Some people consider euthanasia to be just another choice a person makes, and for moral reasons against it to be undue influence by others.
5) Pressure: All the arguments against voluntary euthanasia can be used by society to form a terrible and continuing psychological pressure on people to continue living for years against their better judgement. One example of this pressure is the risky and painful methods that those who genuinely wish to die would otherwise need to use, such as hanging.
6) Sociobiology: Currently many if not most euthanasia proponents and laws tend to favor the dying or very unhealthy for access to euthanasia. However some highly controversial proponents claim that access should be even more widely available. For example, from a sociobiological viewpoint, genetic relatives may seek to keep an individual alive (Kin Selection), even against the individual's will. This would be especially so for individuals who are not actually dying anyway. More liberal voluntary euthanasia policies would empower the individual to counteract any such biased interest on the part of relatives.

Reasons given AGAINST Voluntary Euthanasia:
1) Professional role: Critics argue that VE could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that every doctor must swear upon some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which they interpret as explicitly excluding euthanasia.
2) Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable.
This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
3) Theological: Voluntary euthanasia often has been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians and Jews argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans ought not make the choice to end life. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider VE (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
4) Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
5) Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to be attempting to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
6) Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
7) Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public monies, as in various European counties, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent. While VE proponents concede that personal and even socialized economic costs may add to the motivations for consent, they point out that health systems offer sufficient exceptions so as to relieve the pressure on hospital personnel.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

'The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder' Do you agree?

2007-05-08T20:02:00.000+08:00

Arguments from critics over the death penalty as a form of capital punishment exists since it became lawful. The developed nations – United States, Japan, South Korea and Singapore which practice capital punishment consider people who are involved in first degree murder, terrorist activities, treason or activities which threaten the national security as committing capital crimes. Is the death penalty really a form of justice, serving as a deterrent or is it murder for revenge?

Murder under the law, as defined by an online dictionary, is the killing of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation. So personally, I do not equate the death penalty as committing a murder as I believe in the neccessity of it as a precedent to others. The word which describes what one will feel from ancient methods of execution like crucifixation and tearing asunder to today’s hanging, injecting lethal substances and poison gas chamber is ‘fear’. People will thus first think of the consequences of their actions before executing them as fear strikes a reminder to them. Therefore, the death penalty serves as a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime, preventing repeat offences.

Death penalty makes an example of the felon, assuring the public that he no longer poses a threat to the society. In addition, it is also a way to return justice to the victim and his family members. Try putting yourself in the shoes of the family members of the murdered victim. I believe that the ‘life for a life’ feeling will be overwhelming even though the death of the murderer will never bring him back to life. It just serves as a very good form of comfort.

This lead to why the death penalty seems to be a murder instead of a deterrent as it makes people assume that personal emotions of the judiciary are involved so it is a form of revenge. The irreversibility in miscarriages of justice can create a very great impact on the society and perhaps people should consider what Voltaire, a French philosopher in the 17th century said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”
Moreover, who would want to die in such horrifying and undignified ways?

Supporters of the statement for this essay believe that rehabilitation should be favored over the death penalty as everyone has the rights and should be given a chance to turn over a new leaf. Researches have discovered that people who have committed capital crimes usually suffer from the ‘diminished responsibility’ syndrome where they do not have conscious or sympathy, not mentioning the concept of guilt or code of morality. So should they be hanged or be electrocuted to death because of the fact that they committed murder in a mentally unstable state? Do they deserve it when they are doing it unintentionally?

Moreover, what rights do we human have to play god in taking another’s life? It is obvious and understandable that two wrongdoings do not make a right; we are practicing retributive justice if we do that and thus, we are committing a murder.

However, after arguments from both sides, I disagree that death penalty is a murder. My view of it as a form of deterrent still stands strong as I believe that the consequences of committing capital crimes will serve as a very good warning and aforethought to people before they put on hands to what they want to do. All should be aware and carry the responsiblities of their actions.

*9.55pm*

To what extent is censorship necessary and why?

2007-04-28T20:38:00.000+08:00

Regarding censorship, I believe that the necessity of it lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Imagine watching a soap drama full of profanities, uncut sexual intimacy and violence with your family at home and your curious younger sibling bombarding you with questions. The majority will be at loss of what to do because explaining the sexual scenes and unpleasant vulgarities will make one feel uncomfortable, yet not explaining it would lead to the sibling's increased curiosity and continual asking. You would feel awkward and offended, won't you? This is the time where you truly hope that censorship exists.

Censorship acts as a mean of protection against negative influences. The young will be negatively influenced and traumatised by free media, where gore, horror, pornography are showcased and the list goes on.
Without this filtering system, the world would be in chaos as offensive words will be arrowed towards almost everyone and there will be repeated occurrence of conflicts and misunderstandings. Why do i say so? Because if the media publicises extremists' speeches with intentions to stir up discontentment towards certain racial groups and it does not make the effort to clarify the doubts and questions, riots and fights will definitely take place.
If audiences are allowed to access any forms of media, their values will be tarnished, positive values may not be uphold regardless of how adamant they are to outside influences.
Perhaps the most important area that censorship is targeting on would be national security. If military strategies of a country, let's say Singapore, are disseminated, can this little red dot on the world map survive attacks from other countries? Would media exists without its supporting nation?

Even though censorship provides means of protection and prevention against negativity, loosening the grip on it can also benefit the society.

How would we know about the disgraceful acts done by our former CEO of NKF, the once trustworthy organisation, if a certain extent of freedom of speech is not allowed for the media?
By presenting the truths which the audiences have the rights to know, we can relate that the absence of censorship allows transparency.
If we protect and disallow the young to view certain censored media content, we are actually triggering their curiosity, indirectly urging them to get to these contents by any means. As the famous saying goes,'curiosity kills the cat', the society's method of protecting the young against negative influences will actually backfire. With technological advancements, how difficult would it be to get access to the 'forbidden's if one is determined to do so?
Furthermore, early exposure to the media and the more materialistic side of the society is also as a mean to educate the young, make them less ignorant towards the society and feed their never-ending curiosity. Adults should not be overly protective towards the young or these flowers would definitely find it problematic to adjust themselves to the society when they step out of the greenhouse.

After all that there is to say about censorship, i should say that it provides more merits than demerits and it is definitely necessary. If not, the huge degree of freedom of speech will actually kill.

Mass Media (print) - Creative Untruths

2007-04-16T18:00:00.000+08:00

What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real? (Date of source : 6th april 2003)

With eloquence and convincing words, the influential media often and has the rights to present what is perceived, rather that what is real to the audience, especially when they face pressure from the government or political parties. This is especially prevalent in countries like U.S. where freedom of speech and expression are allowed, though the media still faces internal pressure.

The media sides the government in a way that they only portray the positive side of them and tone down the seriousness of their mistakes. In other words, the media either cover up government's faults or beautify their serious mistakes, they seldom publish the fact, as far as I've inferred from the article.
The article " Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" clearly proves that the entrance of U.S. army is actually an ill-will in disguise; Iraqis have been 'traumatised','crippled' and 'killed' in the 12 years of time during U.S.'s "invasion".
The initiation of war by U.S. was claimed to be a righteous one as they convinced some others of the existance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the urgent need to search and destroy them. However, has any form of media report about the confirmed existance of weapons so far?
Maybe most possibly, what the dominant U.S. did not reveal is their loss of pride due to the 911 terrorists attack and it is their attempt to take revenge and show their dominance.
With an excuse to restore peace after the U.S.-initiated war, U.S. president called for a surge of army to Iraq earlier this year, which was deemed to be unnecesary. However, without even the media's report, rationals will understand that they are actually eyeing on the rich natural resources like oil in Iraq.
This is also an obvious hint that the media has been under the U.S.'s influence on publicising what should be published. There are certainly a lot of unrevealed news that we do not know.

Perhaps to many, the media's looking down on the audience's ability to differentiate between truths and untruths and thus it is a more bias source. But contrastingly, in this particular case, the daring scriptwriter uses our ability to read between the lines, well enough to convey certain facts in an indirect manner. With phrases like 'creative untruths' and 'obliging media', readers can most possibly guess what the writer is trying to say - the media lies too.
Contradictingly, if we the audience do not believe the media, what are the reasons that make us believe in this writer?

Thinking of it in another way, the media is a source of information and a way to attain more knowledge on a wide array of things happening around the world. It is through the media that we acquire first hand information, don't you agree? If this is not so, how would we get to know about 911 and the 2004 tsunami so immediately? Yes indeed, the media is very resourceful and influential.

All in all, it is up to individuals' views on whether to trust this source of information wholeheartedly. After all, being an influential source of medium to get information, audiences will at least carry a weak belief that the media is truthful to what they present.
It is essential that we the audience of the media are willing to expose ourselves to various sources of information to get a more complete scope of what is really happening.

*7.02pm*

homework

2007-04-09T20:13:00.000+08:00

Dear teacher,
I'll do my homework soon....

Dear GP

2007-02-03T22:45:00.000+08:00

I was given a task on the 3rd week of school to create a GP blog to do some self introduction.
So, i am gladly blogging now.
Please try to bear with my not-so-perfect english, mr lee and fellow classmates. :)

Woo...
What kind of person am i?
I guess an "introverted extrovert" describes me best...
Passion and activeness fill me when i familiarise myself with the people and the surrounding. But when facing different cirumstances, i'll turn into a tortise. Actually it's not so serious to that extent, but i'll feel uncomfortable, very not-me.
Bornt as a female, i've no choice but to accept the fact that i am more sensitive than guys. ( CRAPing...)
The point is that i feel that i am quite a sensitive person, sort of very aware of what is going on around me.
I am quite a gossiper so i like to hang around people who gossips. GOSSIPS bright up my days a lot! And i am glad that i've a group of classmates with that talent - gossiping , because i can get 1st hand news! haha...I love them!!

And the fact that i've to go through one week of inconvenience plus around 4 days of pms makes me surrender to god and nature. Well, i would still like to be a GIRl because there are usually more female wears and products than male's PLUS there are Credit cards Specially catered to females! I bet the guys are filled with jealousy, as always. So, yes... i'll get a lot of privileges and "law" support thus i wish to remain my gender identity.

My passion is to help the needy, save the poor and support the sick. Is this aka being compassionate?
Because of this, i joined LEO club ( Leadership Experience Opportunity) in my secondary school since sec 1. It has not been a popular cca all the while but i was and still am Sooo attracted to it by its activities and the loads of stuffs to do as a leo.
The enjoyment was overwhelming during my membership and the 4 years created a very fufilling and fruitful experience as my passion and leadership developed.
I was quite shocked that i received various awards because of my cca and... other factors (well, i don't really know why. haha...)
The 1st character-wise award which i received from my school was the " Sunflower award", an award based on compassion and integrity. So flattered and honoured! woo!!
Due to this award, Mdm "character development head "of my school recommended me for the a few more awards. They were the old glories of mine which were mainly because of the volunteer activities which i participated in.
I was lucky and got the opportunity to be recognised, but there are a lot of people who continue to serve the community without recognition from the public. So the initial thought of helping others has to be there or you might just give up halfway.
It's a little tough sometimes, when people misregard your empathy as sympathy. Empathising with others means to stand in their shoes and feel for them, in contrary to sympathising, where you pity them. This is what most of the misfortuned and needy hates. Thus volunteers have to practise good communication skills in order to convey how they feel.
After leaving my sec sch, i choose to continue my service as a LEO member in LEO club of Singapore Metropolitan, an independent organisation/club, not school based. Oh, forgot to mention that LEO Club exists in more than 50 countries in the world, so its a world-wide organisation. :) YEAH!
I guess my journey will be never ending and i look forward to LOADS of stuffs.
People who are interested to join me are welcome to come to me ! ^.^

In ADDITION, i enjoy bowling, roller blading (even though i'm not good at it) and listening to soothing music ( mainly love songs and instrumental music). Singing is one of my hobbies too! Anyone wanna be my karaoke partner?
Bowling is my current cca in AJC and hope that i'll excel in it! Represent S'pore and be the next Remy! :P

What do friends say about me?
Seriously, my closer friends will complain that i am FIERCE. ( cannot see right?) As a law-by-law person, strictness ruled me when i leaded my cca in sec school. So, i was quite fierce to the inactive members who joined the club because they think that it is a "slack" club. BUT, i've learnt to relax now!!! So, pls dont worry, i am not that fierce anymore.
I separate studies and leisure. When i am in school, it is STUDIES that matters, personal life doesn't. When weekends arrive, i'll enjoy myself to the fullest.
OH! and one of my good friends always say that i am a very just person because i seek for justice and fairness most of the time. JUSTICE MUST LIVE! haha...

On a free day, i would prefer to be alone sitting on my comfy bed reading a book regarding philosophy or social science or chinese literature and listening to music at the same time.
Sadly, it hasn't happen yet! :(
The 2nd thing which i would prefer is writing stuffs, like diary and letters. keke...
3rd thing is staying at home the whole day

Goodnight!

*11.54pm*