Week 8 Blog Prompt

For this week, you may choose any current affairs topic that you feel strongly about and write a 200-word reflection on it. The topic you have chosen may be any article or issue that you have been reading about in Newsweek, Time, The Straits Times or any other platform. Do not limit yourself to the ideas covered in class. Your entry should reflect insights and thoughts to the theme/topic- no superficial glossing over of ideas please.

The current affairs topic which I would like to discuss about would be regarding Kim Jong ll, the North Korean leader's official  one-week visit to Russia. I am interested in this topic as recently, I have been viewing a number of documentaries on Youtube on North Korea and this article has definitely probed my interest, given the background information I have. I believe that world has always had their eyes peeled on the hermit Communist regime for a long time since its establishment sixty years ago, which is well-noted for its constant belligerence and isolation to the world, and above all, its totalitarian political system. Here comes another movement from it.  It must be noted that Soviet Russia had been one of the closest allies of North Korea before the downfall of the communist Soviet Union in 1991. Up till now, about 20% of North Korea's trade comes from its neighbour Russia. Following the development of its nuclear programme, the economic sanction on North Korea by the US has wreaked a long-term famine, or the so-called Arduous March,  in the country , which can be dated back a decade ago and has wiped out a quarter of the population. The North had always visited its allies with a sole objective: To beg for economic assistance, and so is this visit to Russia.I think that the recent massive flood that has exacerbated the plight in the state  had prodded  North Korea's initiative, considering that the last visit to Russia was ten years ago .North Korea is in desperate need for foreign assistance. I would regard the foreign assistance to North Korea in the aspect of both economic and politics.Its isolationist policy has limited both types of assistance only to its allies, most of which are Communist and is from neighbouring China. In response to North Korea's plea, Russia is transporting 50,000 tonnes of grain at the end of September. Above that, I think that North Korea is trying to affirm its rapport and bilateral ties with Russia in the hope that it would receive backing from the latter in the next Six-Party Talks. I hope to continue probing into the mysteries of North Korea and would be alert of future articles like this.


     

Week 5 Blog Prompt

By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:

1. Is there true justice? Why?

2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?

3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.

1. If justice was ever achieved in the novel, it would be only to the benefit of the Christians. Justice is indeed a grey area and is subjective to human emotions and other factors and the perception of it varies from one person to another in different circumstances. To the Christians, Shylock, a Jewish, has always been deemed as inferior and his vindictive act on the extraction of a pound of flesh from Antonio has outraged the former. In the eyes of the Christian, justice will only be achieved when Shylock's belligerence has been subdued and when he duly receives his punishment for harming a Christian's life. Ultimately, there was justice for the Christians but not for its opponent which was mercilessly crushed. True justice, which is also moral rightness, should be held in the light whether it satisfies moral, religious ethics of different matters and circumstances. In light of this, the perpetrators and victims should be identified clearly.In the context of Merchant of Venice, it should be noted that the Christians are actually the perpetrators.Justice, used to judge the right and wrong, would may have never been involved without the misdoings of the Christians. In fact, during the Elizabethean era, Jews have always been treated as outcasts in Europe due to the conflicts of Judaism with Christianity. Shylock has likewise been one of the victims of this virulent discrimination of Jews, and according to him, he has been mistreated at the hands of Christians. This was largely due to the outnumbering of Christians over the Jews,and the hatred between the two sects has been everlasting. Such humiliation against others' beliefs and religion is indeed intolerable and morally unjust and in this case ,justice should be fending for the grievances of Shylock. Instead, it was awarded wrongly and unjustly. The true justice he sought from the lawful bond was denied instead. Thus, we can see that true justice does not always prevail.

2. I do not think so. The punishment meted out on Shylock was not totally mercy, as it superficially seemed to be.  Again, mercy can also be looked upon in different perspectives.  To the Christians, mercy would refer to the sparing of Shylock's life and letting him undergo salvation, which they did by only confiscating half of his fortunes and forcibly converting him to Christianity. However, the state Shylock had been forced into would not be considered by him as merciful. Even though his life has been spared, he has been deprived of his religion beliefs and also half of his fortunes. This is more of a torment than liberation for his life. Such type of mercy would only prolong his agony and sufferings, especially mentally, in the living world. Revenge is actually masked in the light of mercy here.Other examples of mercy shown in this case would be from Portia, who initially expounded it  and even preached it from Shylock. She also offered various opportunities such as by offering money to Shylock  for his mercy towards Antonio. When Shylock rejects all these offers and insists on his belligerence and vindictiveness, he was finally ruthlessly pressed down by Portia. Portia can be said to have offered mercy to Shylock by giving him chances to escape the imminent punitory. Nevertheless, she uses mercy as a tool to trap Shylock in a deadlock later on. Thus, the various examples of mercy shown in this trial is rather inconclusive and ambiguous to show that they are true, or in other words, whether they destroy or benefit Shylock. 

3. This statement is absolutely true, and is prevalent worldwide. In this mercenary world of ours, where money and interests are the guiding principles for everything. Even law and justice, which were regarded to be priceless and sacred, had also become measurable by money. Consequently, law and justice could be altered and manipulated by those who are rich and in power. Powerful figures can exert their influence on others to do so. In Merchant of Venice, the Christians, who were evidently the stronger side, could easily manipulate the Venetian laws to their interest. Even Portia, a woman, can be disguised as a lawyer and dictates the rules with her position against Shylock. Such phenomenon lasts till now. Bribes can easily be issued by the powerful figures to law administrators to play the law into the former hands. Coupled with the debased, corrupted morals of man and his avarice in today's world, this has emerged as a serious problem. The incidences of such skullduggery is in fact astronomical. For example, they thrive in the societies of developing countries in Africa and Asia even in China and India. The recent Dominic Strauss-Kahn sex scandal has also highlighted this, with him alleged to have been involved in bribery to get scot-free. Kim Jong-ll, the North Korean dictator, has also established the laws in the country by himself , which are subjected to change anytime from his order. This is to protect his totalitarian rule to his own interest. All these has significantly diluted the meanings of these two words.

                              

                     

                           

   

Week 6 Blog Prompt

Read up on the Rupert Murdoch phone scandal. You can find some links (from TIME online) I posted up in Week 6, as well as read up on the Newsweek coverage of the news. In relation to the news coverage on the scandal, answer the question: "The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"

I do not totally agree with this statement.  Firstly, I would like to give a brief definition on the word "culture". A certain culture arises in a particular society and the only way that it can emerge is when the entire society  embraces it, and of course, this would involve the masses of the public. 

The paparazzi culture is one that is fanatic and obsessed about the private stories of public figureheads and celebrities. The news media has merely stepped in to serve the purpose of obtaining these sensational and juicy pieces of news for the public through their reporters whose profession is to gather and provide information to the public . Supply matches demand, as we know, when  the demand for something is high, there must also be enough supply of it to match that. In this case, the pursuer of such news is the public and commoners, which forms the bulk of the society.  If they do not crave for these, there would not even be a need for the news media to sieve out private news of others. In other words, the news media is merely executing the wishes of the public. And why is these news sensational ? This is because they attract the overwhelmingly. And why is this so? It all boils down to the innate human curiosity about others. You might argue that origin of this paparazzi culture is the news media since they might have targeted this human flaw and started publishing relevant articles. However, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, the point is that if the public could resist or denounce these, there would be no more continuity of these and ultimately, there would never be a paparazzi culture formed too. Thus, I would hold the paparazzi culture as an natural element that shapes part of our contemporary news culture instead of the creation of the news media, since its roots are entrenched human characteristics. I believe that the prevalent existence of the paparazzi culture had in turn stimulated stiffer competition among the different news publishers to provide more juicy news to the public in order to earn popularity in the public. One example on an outcome of this would of course be the Rupert Murdoch hacking scandal.

In any case, the law could also be said to be responsible for this culture. Indeed, there are very few laws in countries that restrict or regulate the publication of such news. You might argue that the slack regulations in a country has allowed such culture to thrive. I agree with this to a large extent, as the crux of the problem still lies in the public. It would definitely be a bane to a country’s government if they were to suppress the will of the public majority . Furthermore, they would still not be able to eradicate that yearning in the human’s heart eternally. Nonetheless, such laws can still be implemented as they can more or less still alleviate the problems brought about by this , and this can be done in the hope that the prolonged absence of such news in the media can make the culture die down eventually.

In a nutshell,  I do not think that the news media should be entirely blamed for this paparazzi culture, and that stringent laws may  be enforced to curb this.

 .

                       

Week 4 Blog Prompt

1)To what extent do you agree with the issues that the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention


1. I actually agree with a great deal of the issues that the student has raised, and is also a critic of the Singaporean education system.  Indeed, our education has not been stimulating enough to mould the curiosity and thinking process in our students. I would say that what we are learning has been largely content-based, depriving us of the space to think out of the box.  What a student has to do mostly is to memorise these content in order to excel in the exams, during which they are just required to regurgitate these information., though I tend to agree that some unchangeable facts still have to be learnt by heart. However, I oppose extensive memorisation .Most of their time has been spent on just doing this.This has resulted in the severe want of general knowledge and common cents of students, and also their initiative. The entire mind is simply fixed on the subjects they are expected to learn and no attention is paid on to the other attributes of their basic education. Soon after the exams, everything that they had memorised would be largely erased of their mind as they "embark on a new round of knowledge influx". I, as a student here, would like to share some of my personal first-hand experience. Weeks after weeks, we are overwhelmed with assessments or tests on different subjects, on different scale， in addition to the crushing amount of homework assigned daily. Our daily schedule is so hectic that we cannot even afford to spare a minuscule fraction of our life for activities outside that. To most of us, we would just share a common compulsion of clearing the tasks in front of us. Our study material comprises mainly of notes and textbook materials. I believe all of us are prodded by the shortage of time to just stick to and revise on what is given. The education policy of "teach less, learn more"  further compounds the situation, requiring students to expose themselves to further knowledge outside the school curriculum, which is tantamount to increasing the workload and responsibilities of the students. What is the point of this when the students are studying for the sake of studying? The crux of education lies in the fact that it equips us with sufficient knowledge to buttress our depth of thinking processes in the face of future uncertainties, and in short, to tide the child through and advance him fair through life.We even not in the least inspired to think differently.How can our students, the masters of our future, be the founders of change? And how can they adapt our country to the arising turbulent times? Singapore simply cannot take its current prosperity as granted but must further and better it, and that should be the ideal outcome education should yield.
 Studying does not only make you knowledgeable, but also versatile in your thinking and reasoning. Will the knowledge that you memorize be always applicable to the various situations you are in? It is only then does the essence and core of basic education, the ability to make logical and cognitive deduction, comes into handy.That is why we have to receive education. Without this, how can the knowledge that we know be of use? It can be deemed as thrash then. Coupled with this would be the exam-oriented mentality instilled in students and parents here.  The actions of the students fundamentally revolve around the sake of acquiring excellent results for the exams, and has neglected the fact that they are retarding their own mental capacity and all-round development. The perception of intelligence here equates to one's results, which is actually also a misconception. In a nutshell, the Singaporean education can be said to focus on the raw acquisition of information and knowledge rather than the life skills of the student. In Western countries, schools emphasize the significance of thinking and students are engaged in more open critical thinking conversations with one another for their lessons, instead of the conventional Eastern method of imparting solely knowledge to the students. It is only when the student experiences thinking and applies the knowledge he has acquired that the aims of the education has been fulfilled. The result is that Westerners tend to be more creative, innovative, and critical compared with the people in the East. The success is highlighted when school dropouts can also emerge as world figureheads, for example, Apple CEO Steve Jobs.  To the Westerners, education is not the mere acquisition of knowledge, but instead a guide to success. These explains why Easterners are comparatively conservative in their culture, and also how the Westerners has been so advanced in their technologies and societies.  The schools in the West also offer a wide array of third-languages such as Chinese and Korean. This is done in mind of the objective to put students in a good stead when the slated Asian economic dominance arrives. The students there are open-minded and are willing to embrace the virtues of other languages and cultures, thus they learn foreign languages whole-heartedly. Third-language courses are also offered here, but surprisingly, the students claim that they pick them up just for A-levels, with no true intent or interest in the language.  And here in Singapore, any students who raise any bizarre ideas and suggestions would be depreciated and ridiculed, leading to the stagnancy of growth in the creative bunch here. It is no wonder why some pro-Western students would grumble at the education systems here due to its restrictions. 


Also, it must be noted and agreed that the obsession with grades here has also in turn downplayed the dissemination of cultural and moral values. The reliance on content has gone to the extent of even imparting moral concepts through the use of CME textbooks. These can never be infused into the minds of students through lectures, but through early influences and education in childhood and the practical application of it. Rather than teaching the examples of moral deeds, why not stress the importance of morals? The failure to balance between moral and general education has seen its repercussions on the society, that is the corruption of moral values in our Gen-Y. Despite China's education system as even more "dead" than ours, they had successfully groomed morally sound characters. I believe that the reality of the Singapore education system had already made an imprint on student's mind that only their studies mattered to them. 


Therefore, these are two major loopholes of Singapore's education system identified by Janelle Lee, both of which I strongly agree with and rendering me unable to speak up for the system.


2.The letter nonetheless has some flaws in it.  I feel that she is asserting a commanding tone in this letter. This is shown by the use of many rhetorical questions like  "Have we lost the true meaning of education somewhere in the paper chase, buried under all the degrees and diplomas and paychecks?", and also some words of direct criticism, such as "ugliness". This has made it become a true letter of criticism.

Large proportions of her letter were constructed by this tone, and also her reasoning. It lacks some substance in the sense that she should make comparisons of Singapore's education system with those of other advanced countries, and from there probe into the failures of the local education system. This can provide the reader with a stark contrast, which can make it more convincing. Last but not least, to improve on her letter, she should have written on a two-sided basis and also inspecting the merits of Singapore's education system at the same time, after which she can give suggestions on them. This can make the letter seem less commanding.

3. The uprising trend in suicidal cases involving cases would be the main issue I would raise to the Minister. The causes of these suicides have been blamed on the failure of the education system for pressurising students to their extremes. Thus to prevent more of such tragedies from recurring, the education system will have to be reviewed in light of this. I would  also raise other issues such as the growing obesity among students and urge for the all-rounded development of students in our education systems.

In your opinion, is money important in a relationship? Consider the 'transactional' element observed in the relationships between the couples. Do you think there is an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities? Provide examples for your response.

I do not quite feel that way, but I think money is only one of the attributes in building a strong relationship. Most importantly, there should be love and chemistry between the couple. That is the pre-requisite for a new relationship to start. However, in this mercenary and materialistic world, where man's morals have been significantly debased, the meaning of the word "love" has already been diluted and neglected. Intimacy with a person would be considered a relationship and it is unknown of the agenda of the other party. It may be that he or she is eyeing for your riches when keeping close to you. Such a relationship built upon money, or in other words, a monetary relationship, one full of deceptions and schemingness, has seen an surge in the society as man lived in increasing luxury and abundance. Money and financial muscle has become one of the main considerations for a relationship. Before looking at the aspect of wealth, the original basis of a relationship should really be true love and the intention is to care and sacrifice for each other. Without genuine love, there should not even be a relationship that is meant to last for an eternity. Only then does money comes into the topic. I do agree to some extent that a person's financial abililty is indeed important in a relationship. We cannot deny the role of money in our daily lives. Having a strong source of income does indeed help to maintain a good relationship. It ensures a sense of stability and security for your partner, which is the rightfully and conventionally the responsibility of the male. In this world of ours today,we virtually cannot do without money,as we do really need it to satisfy our basic living needs. Another of the attributes to a relationship would be reliability.A relationship also means that a man should be able to support his wife and his family should there be any and provide them with a comfortable life in order for happiness to exist. Thus, money is indeed required for a relationship to last. A couple would have enjoy total bliss if they lack the financial support as they will face the pressures from this money-minded world. However, if a person is married to another, but only to be covetuous of his or her spouse's riches with false love , then this would be a "transactional" relationship. There is indeed an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities, and numberless instances could be raised on this. We know of famous celebrity couples, such as Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, just to name one. There are also women who married rich tycoons, i.e Macau casino tycoon Stanley Ho's three wives. Incidences can also date back to olden days, as potrayed in the Shakespearean "Merchant Of Venice" novel in which Bassanio, a broke spendthrift, courted a marriage with the rich heiress of Belmont, Portia, mainly in the hope of laying hands on her vast inheritances to repay his debt. All these evidently highlight the importance of money in the cultivation of some relationships.

In your opinion,how has war evolved from from the past to present? Please use examples to justify your opinions.

Human history is a history of wars. The few thousand years of history was all replete with wars.  With the advance of the human civilisation,war, whose meaning is brought about by man himself, is thus bound to experience the impact of this. As man's thinking matured and his intellectual capacity expanded in its development, his perspective towards war changed continually. The most immediate factor to this change would be the constant betterment of man's technology, and technology plays an integral part in the occurrence of a war.

With it, man could create tools for killing-weapons to their own advantage and with more scientific discoveries made, more kinds of these weapons could be churned out and can be improved upon to raise its efficiency. This can be noted as one of the most significant difference between ancient and modern warfare. The primary function of weapons is basically to inflict as much destruction on the enemy as possible in order to achieve total victory. Thus, all the modifications made on it were to allow it achieve more of this. Technology was also applied to beef up the defence of  an army.In the past, primitive weapons such as knife and axe were utillised. At this current stage of our development, these had already vanished from our arsenal. Replacing them are modern terms like nuclear missiles and jet fighters. These new inventions of man had indeed achieved its objective. The destruction wrought by these modern weapons is indeed notorious. It is so vile that it was possible for mankind to annihilate itself. Melee weapons used in olden days, however, could only deal damage individually, but not to the entire population. Nuclear or atomic bombs such as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and shells dropped from a helicopter or fighter could instantaneously obliterate an entire city,and even cause deformation in birth after years.The heavy gunfire of machine guns and assault rifles could whittle and decimate an entire platoon within a few seconds. Mankind has seen unprecedented destruction to itself,not from nature but from its very own sentient beings that has become so shockingly ruthless.Thus, in light of the magnitude of these carnage,we should reconsider whether technology is a really a boon or bane to man. 

The cause for waging a war in the past also varied from now. When ithe first human war broke out, it was most probably meant to satisfy the basic surviving needs of the human beings, such as food and other essential living resources. However, as man lived in increasing abundance, his innate vice, greed or avarice,became incited. His heart yearned for more and by nature, greed was a bottomless abyss drilled deep through the pure human heart. There is virtually no way to put an end to it once it takes root . He would covet for anything that brings pleasure and happiness to him to fill up that void in his heart. Nothing is ever sufficient for him. As such, his morals have been greatly corrupted. Today we observe an array of causes for a conflict or a war, all of which are simply manifests of greed. Hitler's justification of starting World War II, namely to avenge the humilliated Germans and to carve out "living space" for his fellow Germans were nothing but a pretext for his mass territorial expansion across Europe to comply his ambitions to become the ruler of the world. So was the case of Napoleon.  Currently, we hear from the news everyday about territorial conflicts, civil strives worldwide. All these are the clashes of interests between different parties. On the other hand, there are also alliances signed among different countries who share common interests in times of war . They actually hope to make use of one another to better protect their self-interest against others. The Axis and Allied blocs were formed in The Great War by Austria-Hungary, Germany and Ottoman Empire against Russia,France and Britain, producing a situation termed "The Balance of Powers" which deters both side from attacking each other. This shows how scheming man to use the manipulation of others as a strategy.

Keeping abreast with the birth of new hardwares, man has also devised new war strategies to better deploy them in order to use them to their fullest extent possible. The new motto of war is to "use less, kill more". One of those examples that would fulfil this would be population bombing campaigns conducted airborne by  bombers. This was first inducted in The Great War following the invention of airplanes. Initially the airplane was used for dogfights against enemy air forces to gain air superiority for reconnaissance purposes. The Spanish Civil War two decades after saw Germany unleashed the true destructibility of this war machine, with horrendous damage witnessed in Spanish cities. This was further highlighted by the Battle of Britain and the bombing of Dresden.Casualties numbered up to thousands in the cities only just overnight. The Japanese used massacre and mass raping in Nanking for the same purpose. All these atrocities were meted out to dampen the morale of the population to reduce war efforts. Other more inhumane examples could be raised.

Besides all these weapons, man does not yet seem to be contented.  Even harmful chemicals were not let off.Thus started chemical warfare, which involves the deployment of chemicals in fighting, i.e, German chlorine gas in WW2, and napalm spraying by Americans in Vietnam War. These weapons are unimaginably lethal to the vital organs to the body, and that is the way they kill. Poison gases like chlorine and Nova 6 corrupt the lungs into disgusting froth, and tormenting the victim in his death throes. Similarly, napalm incinerates the entire body into charred ashes within a matter of seconds. These are more than enough to prove how gruesome and abominable war is. Last but not least, new war strategies have also been constantly drawn up to adopt to the 21st century environment. A salient one would be terrorism, the ingenious terrorist kingpin Osama's brainchild deployed by Muslim extremists against the Americans. In the war against terrorism, there will be no limited battlefield or frontier whatsoever. Attacks from terrorists would be in the form of secret suicide bombing on crowded areas in metropolises to terrorise the world. The scattered presence of these people is elusive, and any spot in the world could turn out to be the "battlefield" for these terrorists to strike. This is the only method for the terrorists to survive, given USA's military prowess.So far, terrorism is still flourishing and has yet to be exterminated by even superpower America.Terrorism seems to have proven that it is successful and viable, and this protracted war looks to go on, bringing only more destruction in its path.

Mohammed Gandhi once said,"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind", more wars and conflicts will only bring about deeper feud, and this probably had formed the framework for the evolution of wars, which may all end well in an apocalypse.