beauty of abc

2007-09-12T07:58:00.000-07:00

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

In the age of globalisation, there is strong emphasis on human rights and the widespread in Western ideology across the world results in more open-minded people. However, the irony is that homosexuals are still being discriminated and this is unjustified. Why is society gradually trying to cease to practice other forms of discrimination, like ageism, but not of the sexual discrimination? The traditional family structure is a nuclear family, where there is a father, mother and children and now same sex marriage is seen as a rebellion against the norm. Even though there are countries like Canada and France, which legalized same sex marriage, most of the homosexuals are still constantly living in the dark and many chose to hide their true identity. Why is it that till now, many countries have yet to legalise same sex marriage? This is a controversial issue as there are merits and demerits that arise from same sex marriage.

Yes, sex marriage is a practical consideration

1. Even though homosexual couples may be legally married, they may still not be recognised as husband-husband or wife-wife in other countries. Hence, many are not able to help their partner to make medical decisions, even in times of emergency. Hospitals do not recognise the homsexuals to be the kin of the patient and hence, they will have to contact the patient's family. However, this is impractical as the patient may be outcasted by his/her family due to his/her sexual orientation. A human's life is at stake and patient should not be stripped off for the chance of survival. Thus, same sex marraige is a practical consideration as it protects the rights of homosexuals.

2. The legalisation of same sex marriage in a country will lead to the discovery of pink dollar. If country were to legalised same sex marriage, many homosexuals will travel there as it is a place where they do not face discrimination or obstalces. Thus, the approval of same sex marriage can lead to an economy boost of country. For instance, Singapore carried out an open-air party at the Sentosa musical fountain amphitheatre for gays in 2004. This long-weekend festival, with a party on each of the three nights, actually attracted 8000 revellers and is predicted to bring $S10 million into the local economy. The above example has evidently proven that same sex marriage is a practical consideration in same sex marriage.

No, same sex marriage is NOT a practical consideration

1. Same sex marriage will upset the reproduction system of human as they are not able to help continue the family line. If same sex marriage is approved, the country's birth rate will sure to decline and this is a extremely worrying to countries that face challenges of a declining birth rate. The countries may have an ageing populationthey will not have enough people in the labour force and most importantly, the military force. The implications caused by same sex marriage are too great to be ignored and hence it will be impractical to consider same sex marriage.

2. Couples from same sex marriage are not able to have children of their own, and most of them will choose to adopt a child. However, medical evidence indicates that children from same-sex families will have a greater risk from suffering Gender Identity Disorder, other psychologicals problems and tendencies to form adolescent same-sex attraction. If children were to grow up in same-sex homes, they will be deprived of their right to have a mother and a father. Moreover, in conservative countries like China and Singapore, the homosexuals and their children will face great external pressure as society is not able to accept their sexual orientation. This attributes to the mental and emotional problems of these children and the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association's "Archives of General Psychiatry" confirmed that children who engage in homosexaulity are more prone to suffer majore depression and to commit suicide. If the actions of the previous generation were to implicate the next generation, same sex marriage is definately not a practical consideration.

The approval of same sex marriage is able to bring about many advantages to the country, but it takes a long time for a society to change their mindset and embrace the homosexuals. Thus, the acceptance of homosexuals should take place in progressive stages, as more time will be given to society to understand the homosexuals. In the long run, the homosexuals will eventually be accepted by society and the country is still able to benefit from the advantages brought by them, in particularly the Pink Dollar.

Research
a) Singapore - the new mecca for Asia's pink dollarAugust 14, 2004
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/13/1092340457194.html?from=moreStories)

RESEARCH

2007-09-09T23:01:00.000-07:00

Globalisation and culture
-Globalisation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation)
-In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture
By David Rothkop
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm)
- Globalisation and Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region
By Hyung Gu Lynn
(http://www.mediatimesreview.com/february05/Globalisation.php)
-Globalisation and its challenges to youth: A gender perspective
By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Rashila Ramli
(http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/workshops/regm_asia_rashila_ramli.pdf)
-ASIA: Globalisation Erodes Local Languages, Fuels 'Glocal' English
By Rahul Goswami
(http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19458)
-Globalisation according to LV
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/fashion/26ROW.html?ex=1343102400&en=a9089f23b75d1f63&ei=5090&partn)

Environment & Biodiversity
-Biodiversity in Pakistan
(http://edu.iucnp.org/biodiversity.htm)
-Environmental issues in Pakistan
(http://edu.iucnp.org/ei.htm)
-Environment, Biodiversity and Agricultural Change in West Africa
• Perspectives from Ghana •
(http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80964e/80964E00.htm)
- Nature and biodiversity
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/current_biodiversity_policy/biodiversity_com_2006/index_en.htm)
- Biodiversity in New Zeland
(http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/biodiversity/)

Sustainable development
- Sustainable development
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development)
-Sustainable development in UK- The government's approach
(http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/)
-Growth and sustainable development in developing countries.
(http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_33987_1_1_1_1_37425,00.html)
-Sustainable development **
(http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development.asp)

Terrorism and War ( Do not restrict to terrorism now. terrorism has already started since 17th century.)
-War on terrorism
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism)
-ZNet's Original Essays and Selected Links Regarding the Sept. 11, 2001 Calamity and preparations for war
(http://www.zmag.org/reactionscalam.htm)
-Terrorism and war, seven stories press **
(http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100383580)
-Context and Aftermath of 911
(http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/9-11/index.asp)
-Munich Massacre
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre)

Sexual discrimination
-Children of same-sex marriages can have 3rd parent
(http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/abc030107.htm)
-Same sex weddings make history
(http://andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/37.htm)
-Clinton's Sweet Deal
(http://andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/38.htm)

2007-08-20T06:03:00.000-07:00

" The mother of revolution and crime is poverty."(Aristotle)

Do you agree?

Aristotle, a greek philosopher(384BC-322BC), established the quote "The mother of revolution and crime is poverty." Poverty is the state or condition of having little or no money, whereby one does not have the basic necessities for survival. Half the world- nearly three billion people- live on less than $2 a day. Imagine the life that these poor people have to lead, where many are deprived of a proper shelter, food, sanitation etc. However, is it true that poverty has the power to drive someone to commit crimes or to a larger extent,to stage a revolution? Is the statement made by Aristotle valid?

"Money is the root of all evils." This phrase may sound cliche but we can never deny that in many situtations, people fight and kill each other for money. When one is poverty-stricken, he will come to a stage whereby the desparation for money can make him cast aside everything to fight for his own survival. The helplessness in them brings them to an unstable mental state where they are not able to differentiate right from wrong. Money is their only belief and only with it, they will then be able to get out of the poverty cycle. And yes, at this point of time, poverty is the source that causes someone to commit a crime.

In the age of globalisation, people strive for equality in all aspects. The disparity of income level in a country may lead to the dissatisfaction of the lower income group. One example is the Indonesian riot that took place in May 1998. The domination of ethnic Chinese minority in the retail economy has resulted in the discontentment of the Indonesian natives and violence against the Indonesian Chinese has erupted across the country. The natives are trying to raise the awareness of the government in hope that they will help to narrow down the gap between the rich and the poor. In such scenario, the poor may feel that the only way to voice out their unhappiness and to get the attention of the society is through a revolution.

On the other hand, poverty may not be the sole reason that cause crimes and revolution. By saying mother of revolution and crime is poverty, we are stereotyping against the poor and this is a practice of class discrimination. Who says only the poor violates the law? Rich people,too, commit crimes. Greed is one of the eight deadly sin that human commits and it is tough for one to suppress greed. When one is given something, he or she will want more of it. One typical example is Mr T T Durai, the former CEO of NKF, who was charged for corruption. Though he was highly respected as the head of an extremely successful fundraising organisation, his greed has led him to bankruptcy. He has ruined his beautiful future with his own hands.

Crime is an action that is deemed injurious to the public welfare. Crime is a broad category in which there are many different crimes such as theft, burglary, kidnap, rape, murder etc. Looking at the list of crimes, theft, burglary and kidnap may be one that people will commit due to poverty. But what about people who commit a rape,molest or even murder? Poverty is definately not the cause for them to breach the law.

Historically, politics and power played by elitle leaders and rulers have increased poverty. The most typical example is the 1911 revolution that took place in China. At that time, almost 90% of the population were peasants. They were often bullied by the landlords and the corrupted government, where landlords pushed up rents whenever they want and the government wanted them to pay taxes 20 years in advance ! Life was miserable and gradually, opposition parties start to rise in attempt to overthrow the inefficient Manchu government. The leaders of the opposition parties are mostly educated in the west and are of reputable families. They wanted to introduce the governing system from the West into China to help solve the problems that existed at that time.

In conclusion, I agree to a small extent that poverty is the root of crimes and revolutions. There are many other factors that attribute to one to commit crimes and thus it is unfair to brand the poor as criminals.

RESEARCH
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/02/18/indone1062_txt.htm

p.s. mdm loh, sry for my super late work.=x

Other forms of discrimination(case study articles)

2007-08-05T22:57:00.000-07:00

LOOKISM
DEFINITION: lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance
LINK:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20031208/ai_n12530889
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={6141A41C-FA23-43F9-B7F6-05A1930FE619}

http://starbulletin.com/96/07/16/features/story1.html

AGEISM
DEFINITION:Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.
LINK:

DISABLISM
DEFINITION:It is used to describe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.
LINK:

XENOPHOBIA
DEFINITION:Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers
LINK:

2007-07-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

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 articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Democracy is a state of society charactersied by formal equality of rights and previlages. Most countries in the world now adopt the democratic system as many history events have proven communism a failure. To practice democracy, the most fundamental concept is to allow citizens to have the freedom of speech. However, this can be such a contradiction. For example, David Irving was in denial of the Holocaust, and was imprisoned for expressing his thoughts and opinions. To practice freedom of speech is to allow people to express themselves without any censorship, and this is the policy that democratic countries adopt. But yet, Austria, which is a democratic country, convicted David Irving for denying the Holocaust. This is indeed ironic. As the world has begin to place great emphasis on human rights, it is tough for us to decide whether to place more focus on social responsibility or that we should be allowed to exercise our freedom of speech fully. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi racial society, I feel that Szilagyi’s belief of placing the focus on social responsibility should be adopted.

Freedom of speech can be vital to the government in hearing the voices of the citizens and know what exactly does the people wants. As quoted from the article “Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust”, “Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” If citizens were not allowed to voice out their grievances or to comment on a certain issues, they will not have a sense of belonging to the country as all matters are to be decided by the government. Also, the government will not be able to make improvements to the life of the people as they are unable to hear the call of the citizens. Moreover, there are always two sides to a story. If everyone was to have the freedom to express their views, they will then be exposed to many view points made by others, allowing them to have analysed the issue better.

On the contrary, freedom of speech may be the cause of political instability and unrest in a country. In a cosmopolitan society, it is crucial to ensure that people of different races and religions are able to live in harmony as media messages or any forms of art can easily trigger a racial riot. Even though Singapore is a democratic country, but I strongly believe that freedom of speech should not be executed in the issue on races/religions. Singapore is a small country and she would be vulnerable to attacks if citizens do not stand together as one. Singapore’s government has taken a great deal of effort in ensuring that there is peace and order in Singapore. 21st July is the day to commemorate racial harmony and integration in Singapore, this is the day whereby schools and Residents’ committees will organize events to give Singaporeans a chance to get to mingle with other races and get know one another’s culture better. It is only with understanding and interaction; we will then be able to have mutual respect for all. Races and religion is still an extremely sensitive issue to touch on as without prior knowledge of the other cultures, misunderstanding may arise and this will most likely to cause a riot to take place.

Szilagyi has mentioned that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media plays a very crucial role in educating the public as we access most of the global information or knowledge from here. Hence, media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group, they should have the social responsibility “in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” It was also mentioned in Szilagyi’s article that “once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations.” For example, the publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad has proved rage in the Muslim world. People may send out messages without having any intention to criticize any races, but some may interpret the message and see it as sarcasm towards their race/religion.

It is indeed very difficult to strike a balance between freedom of speech and social responsibility. If Singapore was to take the view of Singer, racial riot is bound to happen. However, if Singapore was to take the view of Szilagyi, it will obstruct Singapore’s development. Thus, I believe that freedom of speech should be allowed but with close supervising from the government. Government should take up the responsibility in playing the parental role and carry out censorship to materials that may sow discord between two races/religions. As individuals, we have the rights to speak our mind but we should always be ready to bear any consequence that may arise from our words.

p.s. mdm loh,sorry for the late work.xp

2007-07-07T00:39:00.000-07:00

PRO-CHOICE
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. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
Pro-choice activists believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions. Some see abortion as a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.
Pro-choice activists frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.
On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Pro-life
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), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anecephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.
Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which may cause the death of an embryo before implantation. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that hormonal conception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community.
On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to control the fertility of her own body by choosing whether to become pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term.
The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constituional right.
Attachment to a pro-life position is very often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Choice#Pro-choice_vs_Pro-life

2007-07-07T00:32:00.000-07:00

EUTHANAISA RESEARCH-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Euthanasia by means
There is passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive. 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.

Euthanasia by consent
There is involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and equates to murder. This kind of euthanasia is almost always considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial as can be seen by the arguments section below.

Other designations
There are also the designations of mercy killing, animal euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide which is a term for aggressive voluntary euthanasia.

Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
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.

Case Study 1-Karen Ann Quinlan
Karen Ann Quinlan (March 29, 1954 – June 11, 1985) was an important figure in the history of the right to die debate in United States. When she was 21, Quinlan fell unconscious after coming home from a party, and lapsed into a persistent vegetative state. After she was kept alive on a ventilator for several months without improvement, her parents requested the hospital to discontinue active care and allow her to die. The hospital refused, and the subsequent legal battles hit headlines and set significant precedents. Not only was the case groundbreaking legally, it was remarkable for its rare appeal to religious principles. Because she and her family were Catholics, several principles of Catholic moral theology were critical in deciding the case and thus influencing a development in American law, an influence replicated around the world. The case is credited also with the development of the modern field of bioethics. Although Quinlan was removed from active life support in 1976, she lived on in a coma for almost a decade until her death from pneumonia in 1985.
Quinlan's case continues to raise important questions in moral theology, bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship and civil rights; her case has affected the practice of medicine and law around the world. Three significant outcomes of her case were the development of formal ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices, and the development of advance health directives.

Case Study 2:Terri Schiavo
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida, United States was a woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube. She collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990, and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest, leading to 15 years of institutionalization and a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS). In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed this, arguing she was conscious. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The battle stretched on for seven years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups. Before the court's decision was carried out, on March 18, 2005, the Florida Legislature and United States Congress had passed laws, signed by the Governor of Florida and President of the United States, respectively, that were designed to prevent removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. These laws were overturned by the supreme courts of Florida and the United States. These events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage.
By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
She died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41.

2007-05-08T00:22:00.000-07:00

"The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it IS murder." Do you agree?

Capital punishment has been executed for centuries and the implementation of it has aroused the public's concern. "What exactly is the purpose for a death penalty?" This is the common question asked by the majority. Is it to assure the public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society? Or is it an "eye for an eye" form of retributive justice? Country leaders will tell us that capital punishment actually serves as a form of deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime so as to prevent repeated offences. But is death penalty really a deterrent or is it murder?

There are many methods of execution varying from the ancient method of crucifixion to the modern method of lethal injection. Let us backtrack and look at the different methods of execution carried out in the olden days.
-Crucifixion (The criminal was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.)
-Impalement (The criminal is pierced by a long stake. The penetration can be through the sides, from the rectum, or possibly through the mouth. The stake would be usually planted in the ground, leaving the individual hanging to die.)
-Criminals are burnt alive
-Stoning(People hurl stones at the criminal)
-Drowning
-Tearing asunder(The hands, legs and head of the criminal are tied to 5 horses respectively and are tore apart as horses galloped in different directions.)
-Beheading
Snapping back to reality, we shall see what are the execution methods of today.
-Hanging
-Poison gas chamber
-electric chair(2300Volts)
-Lethal injection
-Firing squad

Looking at the above capital punishments, I believe that no one will ever want to die in such a gruesome manner.Thus,before anyone commits a crime, they will be reminded of the consequences and will then think twice. In such way, capital punishment is serving as a deterrent as it prevents repeated offences.Well; I agree that capital punishment is a deterrent, but only to a small extent.

There are people who will not be disturbed by the punishment they will receive, as they are already prepared to die when committing a crime. Take Cho Seung Hui, the US gunman who carried out a massacre in Virginia Tech University recently and committed suicide after the rampage, as an example. Do you think that he be afraid of the death sentence if he was still alive? My answer is no. People like Cho are weak psychologically, they commit crimes to attract the attention of people as they may be feeling lonely in this world.Hence, if we were to execute them, we are actually indirectly helping them to "fulfill" their wish because their names are now glorified. This may encourage copycat crimes as criminal is seen as a martyr by some people.

Many people will agree that the modern methods of execution are more humane than the ancient ones.However, I beg to differ. Ancient execution methods were mostly instant deaths for the criminals. The modern methods cause criminals to suffer mentally and die in agony, even though they may seem to be less horrifying than the ancient methods. But in actual fact, the modern execution methods often leave criminals an undignified death. Criminals are blindfolded before they are hanged to prevent their eyeballs from dropping out as the impact of the shock is too great.Sometimes, criminals may vomit, pee or even poo.The process of their death is also prolonged and they will have to struggle mentally as they countdown to their death. (For instance, criminals will die slowly through lethal injection as it will take a long time for the poison to circulate the whole body system.)Is it actually fair for them to die in such a way? Criminals, too have their human rights, they should not be deprived of a dignified death. It is too cruel to take away a life like that, even if he is a murderer, as this is no different from murder.

Human cannot play God. They are in no position to take away a person's life. It is cliché to believe in the phrase” a life for a life" as two wrongs do not make a right. The execution of these criminals may preserve national security and it is more economically sound to execute the prisoner than keep him in life incarceration as he will be living off taxpayers' dollars. But isn't it more beneficial for the society if the prisoner was given a chance to turn over a new leaf and is able to contribute to the country in the future? Moreover, people may not commit capital crime out of willingness. Why would people traffic drugs when they know that they will get a death sentence if caught? It is mainly because poverty has driven them into the corners and out of desparation, they traffic drugs to earn money. In such a scenario, it is unfair for them to face capital punishments as they have no other way out but to resort to committing crimes if they want to survive.

Without taking their intention and circumstances into consideration, it is cruel to sentence them to death and this is equivalent to murder. It is undeniable that capital punishment does serve as a deterrent to prevent crimes but how effective is it? There are still many people out in this world committing capital crimes and this has thus proven the ineffectiveness of capital punishment being a deterrent. Thus, I conclude that capital punishment is more of murder than a deterrent.

2007-04-29T00:50:00.000-07:00

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is unnecessary/necessary.

Censorship is exercised in the media of all aspects, be it the television, music, articles, images etc. Government plays the parental role in regulating the powerful mass media in society, and they are the ones who determine what the media should present to the people. These are taboos (politics, religions, horror, racial, pornography, offensive etc.) which media will avoid from reporting so as to refrain getting themselves into trouble with the law.

To censor or not to censor is a controversial topic and is subjected to individuals. However, there are always two sides that we have to view in an issue.

Media serves as a tool for us to receive new knowledge and to express our thoughts and feelings. If censorship was not carried out, people will be free to access any form of media and it will be of a higher possibility for them to get hold of taboo materials. Singapore is a multi racial country and it is vital for people of different races and religions to live harmoniously together, hence is it very sensitive to discuss on racial and religion issues. If all has the freedom to voice out their thoughts and feelings, no one will ever think of the consequences of their words. A racial riot may spark off easily when one simply comments about a particular race and Singapore will be in a dire state. With censorship, the national security is guaranteed as it serves as a safety valve to prevent any exposure of sensitive materials that may agitate the different races.

B.G. George Yeo once said “ Act of censorship is itself symbolic and an affirmation to young and old of the values we hold as a community.” Internet, especially, is where we are able to access to almost everything in the world with just a click on our mouse. We are all aware that children of tender age are most vulnerable towards pornography, they easily get addicted to it and promiscuity will be encouraged in them. This upsets the growing up process of a child and with their upright values tarnished, they may grow up into an incorrigible person. In this area of concern, censorship protects the young from early exposure of pornography, gore and violence by allowing them to mature in a healthy environment. It also protects the rest of the human population from gruesome images or scenes that may be disturbing them.

On the other hand, censorship is a contradiction itself. Government encourages the common people to express their thoughts and feelings freely but at the same time, they censor those comments that they view as taboo words. It is actually depriving us of the freedom of speech and violating our human rights by not revealing the truth to us.

Censorship easily causes misunderstanding, as the message is not brought clearly across. Without censorship, it will actually allow transparency and help demystify the doubts of people. The early exposure of certain things, such as sexual issues, may not be a bad thing after all as it can serve as an education for the young. Instead of blocking all access to it and causes the curiosity to burn in children, don’t you think that it will be better for us to first educate them and help clear their doubts for their questions? The ignorance of many things around the world is often the result of censorship. Transparency of media is a form of fairness to the population, as it reveals everything to the public and not hide any information from them.

All in all, censorship should take place so as to protect the society from materials that are morally unaccepted and offensive. However, this is subjected to one’s perspective of a matter and it is very tough for us to justify. Personally, I feel that censorship is necessary as people are often unable to differentiate what is right or wrong, hence by exercising censorship, it will help us to drain away materials that are deem as taboos.

2007-04-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

What have you learnt about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real? (Based on the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" –6april2003)

Media exists in many different forms-newspapers, magazines, television, radios etc. It is the means of communication, which reach or influence people widely and hence it has the obligation to update us daily with the world’s happenings. But has it ever come across your mind that the information we received may not be totally factual? Have we ever doubted the credibility of the media?

With the encouragement for the freedom of speech and with their powerful command of English Language, I am sorry to say that today’s media frequently weave creative stories and present to us what they perceived over what is real. The information we received are only a part of the truth but when we zoom out our lens to take a look at the whole picture, we will often realize that we are misled by our innovating media.

Pressure from the government may be the best explanation for the actions of the media. The media is used as a tool by the government for propaganda purposes and the government will definitely not tolerate scandals or news that are of disadvantage to them. Eventually, it is understandable that media will only broadcast the glory of the government and make obscure reports on the mistakes made by government. With reference to the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", my above stand is strongly supported.

As far as everyone knows, the Iraq war has sparked off as USA argued that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction. However, none of the arguments for war was substantiated from the start. Has any weapons of mass destruction been found till this stage? The answer is no. So why does people still has the strong belief of the existence of such weapons? The phrase-"creative untruths" is used in the article to describe the news given to us by the reporters. From only two simple words, we can infer that media is not always trustworthy. They can lie. As quoted from the article, "Many Iraqi civilians have been crippled, traumatized and killed in 12 years of war", we can see that the usage of these words in bold have aroused our strong feelings towards the real situation in Iraq. We can eventually see the whole picture of this cruel reality through inference from these words- USA’s real motive of the Iraq war is to have full control of Iraqi oil But how many are actually aware of this true story? I believe only the minority does.
To put it nicely, the media may have their restrictions or obligations to report a certain piece of information to the world and thus it is dependent on individuals whether or not to trust them in wholesale.

However, I personally feel that we should widen our scope and not just narrow our source of education to one. Only then, we will be able to look at things from different perspectives and eventually find logic to it.

2007-04-09T07:56:00.000-07:00

Tada~ my gp blog is finally up! Let me do some self-introduction before getting down to do my very first blog entry assignment.

SERENE is my name but I, as a person, am definitely not serene. Somehow, I feel that I have a split personality. You can call me an extrovert, as I can be really talkative and hyperactive at times. (p.s. I love to crack lame jokes.) However, there are times when I will really mute myself and remain silent for a long period of time. Well, you cannot blame me for that as majority of the females has mood swings at particular days in a month. I have to admit that I have a weak command for the English Language, as I am a Mandarin-oriented person. (You can actually draw this conclusion if you know I am taking CLL as one of the subject. Chinese is a beautiful language. =]) Hence, pardon me if you find weird sentence structures in my essay. But wait, you must always remember to correct me from my mistakes by leaving comments after reading each of my essays. Learning from my own mistakes is the only way for me to improve my English language and I will appreciate your help. =)

MY TOPSY-TURVY LIFE. My body clock is definitely unique as compared to many people out there. When people are out in the sunlight, I will be in my dreamland; when people are all snoozing away, I will be wide-awake. Having a nocturnal life, I sleep mostly in the day (except during school days) and wake up at around midnight. My brain is most active at dusk and thus I’ve adopted the habit of studying late into the night after having my afternoon nap. Luckily, I am able to switch my body clock to "normal mode" during school days, although I may still feel sleepy from time to time in school.

MUSIC. It is my love, my passion. I have been learning the piano for eight years and I simply love it! The only obstacle that prevents me from playing certain songs is my miniature pair of hands. Sadly, I do not have long and slim fingers like many pianists, thus I often meet with great difficulty with songs that involve the playing of notes in an octave. Besides piano, I have also acquired the skills to play Guzheng, a Chinese String instrument, during my four years in secondary school. The pursuit of my passion for music is perpetual. It is never ending. I am now in AJC guitar ensemble and, of course, my ultimate aim is to learn to play the guitar! (Hahas. =D) There are so many musical instruments that I yearn to learn, regardless if they are Western or Chinese instruments. Saxophone, Pipa (another Chinese orchestral instrument), drums, western flute…I know I am greedy. (Bleah.xp)

I guess these are all you need to know about me! The rest is for me to know and for you to find out! *winks.

Goodnight, people.