Globalisation
Pros:
-without globalisation, "the developing world and the millions in it who live in extreme poverty will lose the best chance they have of improving their lot in life. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1790941.stm
-Gives millions of people new choices
-Globalisation is based on trade,and trade,raises incomes everywhere.
-Globalisation allows us the chance to build One World in which we better understand our neighbours' hopes and dreams
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/941031.stm
Cons:
-rich get richer, poor get poorer.
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701014/session3.html
-loss of culture, identity.
Enviroment and biodiversity
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/
http://environment.about.com/
http://www.environmentalwars.org/
http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/article.php?id=3514&IssueNum=23
http://www.environment.tn.nic.in/SoE/soe_report.htm
Healthy forests law: Nature requires intervention, market forces are better than regulations, and environmental protections are not possible without economic
growth.http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/01/bush.environment.ap/
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
United States of America,1967:mixed race marriages were made legal .
Holland, April of 2001:the first time gay marriages were made legal in the entire world.
Is is not ironic how in this modern world led by globalization had first accepted same-sex marriages a mere six years ago?The start of the twenty-first century marked a new age of technology,of science,innovation all not only led by,but also leading the force of globalization and yet, it was not till one year into the 21st century that same-sex or gay marriages were legalised.Till date, only six countries have legalized gay marriages while many others are still in a debate on whether or not to do so.Why is this so?Maybe because same sex marriages are no considered practical just as yet.I however, beg to differ.
The most well known reason as to why gay marriages should not be legalized is due to the fact that marriages should be natural-meaning marriage is in fact about procreation.In a religious perspective-this is viewed as God's will.But how practical is this reason actually?If gays should not be allowed to marry as their marriage is "unnatural", then infertile couples should also be refused marriage as they would not be able to procreate.Is this not going against nature?If marriages are seen only as a "process" that will produce a child at the end, then old couples as well as couples who choose to be childless should also be banned from marriage as are gays.This however is not so as society regards marriage as a sacred bond of love, not a child producing "reaction". Then why the double standards for gays? Why are their marriages not left to love?
Furthermore, marriage is a basic human right and should not be denied to anyone, regardless of sexuality.This all the more a reason why gay marriages should be legalized, especially in democratic countries that preach the freedom of human rights. Also,every country tries to do its part to minimize discrimination(race, religion,class,gender). It is time the world realise one thing-a ban against gay marriages IS discrimination.So much for a harmonious, non-judgmental world.(p.s mdm loh:i am so sorry for the tone...but its true!!)
Many also claim that gays choose to be so and should therefore, be councelled to "cure" them from their unacceptable sexual preference. If this is so, then why is it that many gays claim to "suffer" with homosexuality from a very young age. Take for example Reverend Paul Barnes, who confessed that he has been homosexual from the age of five. How can a child that tender of age possibly choose to love the same gender? Also, ask any homosexual person and he will tell you that being gay is suffering day in and day out.Why would anyone willingly choose to suffer as such?
Reverend Paul Barnes and Reverend Ted Haggards both confessed to having homosexual relationships with other men.If they had gotten married to a man from the beginning(that is of course it is legal to do so),it eould have saved them all the humiliation and suffereing they faced after their gay affairs.So again, gay marriages are indeed practical.
We live in a mordern world guided by globalization.Society has opened up to so many new ideas, leaving behind the old fashioned way of life.Society should also,therefore, leave behind the old mentality of anti-homosexuality and accept gay marriages as they do heterosexual marriages.Is it not after all, all about 'live and let live'?
United States of America,1967:mixed race marriages were made legal .
Holland, April of 2001:the first time gay marriages were made legal in the entire world.
Is is not ironic how in this modern world led by globalization had first accepted same-sex marriages a mere six years ago?The start of the twenty-first century marked a new age of technology,of science,innovation all not only led by,but also leading the force of globalization and yet, it was not till one year into the 21st century that same-sex or gay marriages were legalised.Till date, only six countries have legalized gay marriages while many others are still in a debate on whether or not to do so.Why is this so?Maybe because same sex marriages are no considered practical just as yet.I however, beg to differ.
The most well known reason as to why gay marriages should not be legalized is due to the fact that marriages should be natural-meaning marriage is in fact about procreation.In a religious perspective-this is viewed as God's will.But how practical is this reason actually?If gays should not be allowed to marry as their marriage is "unnatural", then infertile couples should also be refused marriage as they would not be able to procreate.Is this not going against nature?If marriages are seen only as a "process" that will produce a child at the end, then old couples as well as couples who choose to be childless should also be banned from marriage as are gays.This however is not so as society regards marriage as a sacred bond of love, not a child producing "reaction". Then why the double standards for gays? Why are their marriages not left to love?
Furthermore, marriage is a basic human right and should not be denied to anyone, regardless of sexuality.This all the more a reason why gay marriages should be legalized, especially in democratic countries that preach the freedom of human rights. Also,every country tries to do its part to minimize discrimination(race, religion,class,gender). It is time the world realise one thing-a ban against gay marriages IS discrimination.So much for a harmonious, non-judgmental world.(p.s mdm loh:i am so sorry for the tone...but its true!!)
Many also claim that gays choose to be so and should therefore, be councelled to "cure" them from their unacceptable sexual preference. If this is so, then why is it that many gays claim to "suffer" with homosexuality from a very young age. Take for example Reverend Paul Barnes, who confessed that he has been homosexual from the age of five. How can a child that tender of age possibly choose to love the same gender? Also, ask any homosexual person and he will tell you that being gay is suffering day in and day out.Why would anyone willingly choose to suffer as such?
Reverend Paul Barnes and Reverend Ted Haggards both confessed to having homosexual relationships with other men.If they had gotten married to a man from the beginning(that is of course it is legal to do so),it eould have saved them all the humiliation and suffereing they faced after their gay affairs.So again, gay marriages are indeed practical.
We live in a mordern world guided by globalization.Society has opened up to so many new ideas, leaving behind the old fashioned way of life.Society should also,therefore, leave behind the old mentality of anti-homosexuality and accept gay marriages as they do heterosexual marriages.Is it not after all, all about 'live and let live'?
Friday, August 10, 2007
The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.
Out of the 6.5 billion people on earth, about 852 million people are hungry, and this hunger takes the lives of 6 million children each year. Living on footpaths, eating from garbage bins or not eating at all- this is the face of poverty we see around us. But is there more to poverty than meets the eye? Is it after all poverty that fuels the drive of destruction throughout our world?
"Poverty causes crime". An expression heard much too often. It is true to a large extent that poverty is indeed the root of crimes and there are several reasons for this. Firstly, the poor need to steal in order to survive.Jobless, homeless- their only way of eating or clothing themselves is by theft.Crime is a risk the poor are more than willing to take as, if they suceed, they would have some money at hand and if they fail, would lose nothing, as they have nothing to lose in the first place.However, apart from survival, anger and hatered (possibily fueled by jealously) towards the rich could also be a reason for such crimes. Assault, property damage, even death- are outcomes of this class divide between the rich and poor, which we can see clearly in Indonesia.Indonesia has high crime rates- most of which affect Chinese owned businesses and companies. This could be seen as an act of hatered towards the rich chinese in the country by the relatively poor locals.
However, poverty is not the only reason for crimes. Crimes committed by teenagers can be seen as rebellious acts or simply immature acts ( teenage sex,drugs,alcohol,theft). Reasons for these could be the impacts of broken homes or bad company. Also, many believe that claiming poverty is the cause of crime is in itself,crime, as claim makes it seem as if poverty is an acceptable reason for criminal acts.
Yet again, these causes are seen more in developed countries, where crime is not an act of survival. This in itself(developed countries seen as rich countires) shows that poverty is indeed the mother of crime.
History is filled with revolutions, from the French to the Mexican and to the Chinese. What then has poverty got to do with revolutions? Take for examplt the mexian Revolution in 1910. Mexica then had an extremely corrput government whcih brought about sever poverty. The rich became richer, poor became poorer and the gap between the classes further widened. Having had enough, Mexicans living in poverty started a revolution against their goverment.
This is similar to the Russian Revolution against the Tsars, where peasants buried in poverty became revolutionaries against their gorvenment.
However, poverty was the reason for all revolutions. For example, revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Udam Singh and Sukhdev fought against Britsih rule not due to poverty, but mainly due to the passion for a free India- where Indians can finally be given the rights of human beings rather than that of dogs, where toture and unjust against people will cease. This revolution was for freedom, rights and,to a certain extent, revenge.
Poverty therefore does play an exceptionaly big role in crime and revolution, but it was, and is, not the only cause for both.Sadly,
"Poverty causes crime". An expression heard much too often. It is true to a large extent that poverty is indeed the root of crimes and there are several reasons for this. Firstly, the poor need to steal in order to survive.Jobless, homeless- their only way of eating or clothing themselves is by theft.Crime is a risk the poor are more than willing to take as, if they suceed, they would have some money at hand and if they fail, would lose nothing, as they have nothing to lose in the first place.However, apart from survival, anger and hatered (possibily fueled by jealously) towards the rich could also be a reason for such crimes. Assault, property damage, even death- are outcomes of this class divide between the rich and poor, which we can see clearly in Indonesia.Indonesia has high crime rates- most of which affect Chinese owned businesses and companies. This could be seen as an act of hatered towards the rich chinese in the country by the relatively poor locals.
However, poverty is not the only reason for crimes. Crimes committed by teenagers can be seen as rebellious acts or simply immature acts ( teenage sex,drugs,alcohol,theft). Reasons for these could be the impacts of broken homes or bad company. Also, many believe that claiming poverty is the cause of crime is in itself,crime, as claim makes it seem as if poverty is an acceptable reason for criminal acts.
Yet again, these causes are seen more in developed countries, where crime is not an act of survival. This in itself(developed countries seen as rich countires) shows that poverty is indeed the mother of crime.
History is filled with revolutions, from the French to the Mexican and to the Chinese. What then has poverty got to do with revolutions? Take for examplt the mexian Revolution in 1910. Mexica then had an extremely corrput government whcih brought about sever poverty. The rich became richer, poor became poorer and the gap between the classes further widened. Having had enough, Mexicans living in poverty started a revolution against their goverment.
This is similar to the Russian Revolution against the Tsars, where peasants buried in poverty became revolutionaries against their gorvenment.
However, poverty was the reason for all revolutions. For example, revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Udam Singh and Sukhdev fought against Britsih rule not due to poverty, but mainly due to the passion for a free India- where Indians can finally be given the rights of human beings rather than that of dogs, where toture and unjust against people will cease. This revolution was for freedom, rights and,to a certain extent, revenge.
Poverty therefore does play an exceptionaly big role in crime and revolution, but it was, and is, not the only cause for both.Sadly,
Monday, July 2, 2007
June Blog Task
As Szilagyi mentioned in the article, ensuring freedom of speech and protecting the interest of the society cannot happen together. This is something that I truly believe in which is why I feel that to ensure racial harmony in Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s views.
Singapore is a multi racial society and although we are said to be a democratic society, we do not have excess to freedom of speech (speaking against PAP will lead you straight to jail). This, I feel, is a very good thing. Take for example the cartoonist sketcher on Muhammad. Although the newspaper had no such intentions, a situation where Muslims around the world were rioting and unhappy with the Danish did come about. Religion is an extremely sensitive topic that should not be given any freedom of speech as the most likely outcome, as was in this case, is violence. If people were given the right to speak as they wished in Singapore, racial unrest would be the likely outcome. As mentioned earlier, freedom of speech and interest of the people cannot go hand in hand. This can only happen if the press becomes mature enough, as Szilagyi mentioned, to think before they publish. But press, like some European newspapers who republished the cartoons again, prefer to show that they have the freedom to publish whatever they wish to rather than to think through the consequences of their actions. This is why I feel that freedom of speech should be given when, and only when the press and society at large learns how to respect their given right. Till that happens, the government has to act as a parent and teach its children right from wrong.
However, Singer made a very good point by asking how imprisoning a person for denying the holocaust would persuade others who think that way to change their minds. Singer feels that freedom of speech is every human being’s right and the way to correct a person’s view is by providing the person with the right knowledge rather than pinning the person down with the law. I completely agree to this as this way, the person will still have his own freedom of an opinion, but will be given an opportunity to have a second opinion after looking at the facts. However, the question I wish to raise is just how many people can we educate this way? And how many people will actually listen? People who deny the holocaust are either Nazis or completely insane. Then what would be the point in trying so hard to convince them otherwise? In the end, their words will still have a harsh impact on the people who are related to the issue, may it be Muslims or Jews. This person’s words will still cause unhappiness and unrest among people and even of the person changes his perception after looking at evidence, the harm was already done.
Therefore, I feel that multi racial Singapore should adopt Szilagyi’s views.
Singapore is a multi racial society and although we are said to be a democratic society, we do not have excess to freedom of speech (speaking against PAP will lead you straight to jail). This, I feel, is a very good thing. Take for example the cartoonist sketcher on Muhammad. Although the newspaper had no such intentions, a situation where Muslims around the world were rioting and unhappy with the Danish did come about. Religion is an extremely sensitive topic that should not be given any freedom of speech as the most likely outcome, as was in this case, is violence. If people were given the right to speak as they wished in Singapore, racial unrest would be the likely outcome. As mentioned earlier, freedom of speech and interest of the people cannot go hand in hand. This can only happen if the press becomes mature enough, as Szilagyi mentioned, to think before they publish. But press, like some European newspapers who republished the cartoons again, prefer to show that they have the freedom to publish whatever they wish to rather than to think through the consequences of their actions. This is why I feel that freedom of speech should be given when, and only when the press and society at large learns how to respect their given right. Till that happens, the government has to act as a parent and teach its children right from wrong.
However, Singer made a very good point by asking how imprisoning a person for denying the holocaust would persuade others who think that way to change their minds. Singer feels that freedom of speech is every human being’s right and the way to correct a person’s view is by providing the person with the right knowledge rather than pinning the person down with the law. I completely agree to this as this way, the person will still have his own freedom of an opinion, but will be given an opportunity to have a second opinion after looking at the facts. However, the question I wish to raise is just how many people can we educate this way? And how many people will actually listen? People who deny the holocaust are either Nazis or completely insane. Then what would be the point in trying so hard to convince them otherwise? In the end, their words will still have a harsh impact on the people who are related to the issue, may it be Muslims or Jews. This person’s words will still cause unhappiness and unrest among people and even of the person changes his perception after looking at evidence, the harm was already done.
Therefore, I feel that multi racial Singapore should adopt Szilagyi’s views.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The death penalty is not a deterrent,it is murder. Do you agree?
Yes.Death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder.
First things first- no human being is God.In other words,no human being has the right to take away a life. Then of course people argue that in cases of murder, the guilty has already taken a life. But what we have to realise is that in almost all cases-even if the guilty person was supossedly in his senses during the murder-he is mentally unstable.This can either be seen in the medical point of view or what i call the "human-being" point of view.Which human being will want to kill another?More often than not, something in the person snaps before he does such an act.So will killing this person really help?
The death penatly is in many ways inhumane.We always hear people talk about how cruel olden day methods of killlings were , but think of it-is the electric chair,death by hanging or the most "human" lethal injection any better? We have all heard about cases that have gone wrong and then only do we realise how inhuman this whole thing is.So rather than killing the guilty, would it not be better to give him treatment or counsilling instead? The government-especially in Singapore- always stress on giving ple a second chance-we see posters encouraging people to employ ex-drug additcs because they too are human and deserve a second chance at life.Then why should these 'murderes' be any different? Another thing goverments should invest on rather than the huge electicity bills thanks to the electirc chair would be the study of the brain of a murderer. Maybe after all the studies, they can actually help to prevent people from becoming like this. Then there would no longer be the need for such a debate.
Another thing that is extremely unfair is when the death penalty is given to a perdon who is caught posessing drugs. Many a time, people turn to drug trafficking due to their extreme poverty-how then can the state be so 'heartless'?
There is no doubt that the death penalty is an excellent way to warn people not do carry out such acts and is also a way for the victim's family to feel satisfied as their 'revenge' has been taken with the murderer's death.But I still feel that the death penalty is not the way to go which is probably why if i ruled the world, there will be no such thing as the death penalty.
First things first- no human being is God.In other words,no human being has the right to take away a life. Then of course people argue that in cases of murder, the guilty has already taken a life. But what we have to realise is that in almost all cases-even if the guilty person was supossedly in his senses during the murder-he is mentally unstable.This can either be seen in the medical point of view or what i call the "human-being" point of view.Which human being will want to kill another?More often than not, something in the person snaps before he does such an act.So will killing this person really help?
The death penatly is in many ways inhumane.We always hear people talk about how cruel olden day methods of killlings were , but think of it-is the electric chair,death by hanging or the most "human" lethal injection any better? We have all heard about cases that have gone wrong and then only do we realise how inhuman this whole thing is.So rather than killing the guilty, would it not be better to give him treatment or counsilling instead? The government-especially in Singapore- always stress on giving ple a second chance-we see posters encouraging people to employ ex-drug additcs because they too are human and deserve a second chance at life.Then why should these 'murderes' be any different? Another thing goverments should invest on rather than the huge electicity bills thanks to the electirc chair would be the study of the brain of a murderer. Maybe after all the studies, they can actually help to prevent people from becoming like this. Then there would no longer be the need for such a debate.
Another thing that is extremely unfair is when the death penalty is given to a perdon who is caught posessing drugs. Many a time, people turn to drug trafficking due to their extreme poverty-how then can the state be so 'heartless'?
There is no doubt that the death penalty is an excellent way to warn people not do carry out such acts and is also a way for the victim's family to feel satisfied as their 'revenge' has been taken with the murderer's death.But I still feel that the death penalty is not the way to go which is probably why if i ruled the world, there will be no such thing as the death penalty.
merits and demerits of censorship
Censorship is is everywhere-in movies,in advertisments, on the radio and even on the inetrnet(thanks to parental blocks). But is censorship really necessary?
Censorship is a way for the government to "protect" its people.If there were to be no censors on television or the internet, then people will be free to view everything-including drugs,sex,violence,vulgarities- the list is endless. Sure, this might not seem like such a big deal to adults or tennagers even,but imagine a young child exposed to such things.The consequences could be more harmful then we think.What if that young boy,exposed to movies on gruesome murders grows up to be a murderer, or a sex addict if he is free to watch t.v.soaps full of sex?Tender minds learn from watching.If they see things like sex and violence everywhere around them when growing up, when they too will grow up to think that this is all alright.
Also, if people were free to acess any media, then their values could be tarnished.For many cultures, sex is a sacred thing which is why in countries like India, any movie with even a kissing scene becomes an NC-16 movie.Not just that, media without censorship could also be offensive to people in terms of religion or race.For example,the movie Borat was banned in Kazakstan as it was a huge offense to the people of that country. If such a censorship act was not carried out there, then many people of that country might have started riots on watching it.
However, it is a fact that we, as human beings, deserve our freedom and therefore, deserve to know the truth.Not only that, if there was free media, then the early exposure to young children might actually be a form of education. In other words, if childrean were to grow up in a world where everything is blocked or censored for them, then their curiosity might lead them into even deeper waters than if they were simply exposed to the world from the start.
This debate is the very reason why it is so difficult for any authority to pipn point what should be censored and what should not. Once again, this is a debate that might never come to an end.
Censorship is a way for the government to "protect" its people.If there were to be no censors on television or the internet, then people will be free to view everything-including drugs,sex,violence,vulgarities- the list is endless. Sure, this might not seem like such a big deal to adults or tennagers even,but imagine a young child exposed to such things.The consequences could be more harmful then we think.What if that young boy,exposed to movies on gruesome murders grows up to be a murderer, or a sex addict if he is free to watch t.v.soaps full of sex?Tender minds learn from watching.If they see things like sex and violence everywhere around them when growing up, when they too will grow up to think that this is all alright.
Also, if people were free to acess any media, then their values could be tarnished.For many cultures, sex is a sacred thing which is why in countries like India, any movie with even a kissing scene becomes an NC-16 movie.Not just that, media without censorship could also be offensive to people in terms of religion or race.For example,the movie Borat was banned in Kazakstan as it was a huge offense to the people of that country. If such a censorship act was not carried out there, then many people of that country might have started riots on watching it.
However, it is a fact that we, as human beings, deserve our freedom and therefore, deserve to know the truth.Not only that, if there was free media, then the early exposure to young children might actually be a form of education. In other words, if childrean were to grow up in a world where everything is blocked or censored for them, then their curiosity might lead them into even deeper waters than if they were simply exposed to the world from the start.
This debate is the very reason why it is so difficult for any authority to pipn point what should be censored and what should not. Once again, this is a debate that might never come to an end.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Spilling blood with oil in Iraq
What have i learnt about how media presents things.
In this article, we can so clearly see the anti-America feelings in almost every sentence. This article, which states how the US has caused nothing but deaths and destruction in Iraq, is obviously trying to stir anti-American feelings amongst its readers. The article is filled with heavy loaded words for example, "civillians have been crippled,traumatised and killed" and although the passage does state facts on how the US tried to push the blame of the various events taking place in Iraq onto others, it also makes alot of assumptions and claims that eveything the US did or said on the Iraq war was a lie.
Although there are evidences,not just in this aritcle, on how the US had indeed manupilated the truth many times, we cannot simply presume that all their doings are wrong.However, thsi article is such that on reading, the reader will tend to agree to all that the aritcle states and therefore, media has once again suceeded in presenting what is preceived rather than the entire truth.
In this article, we can so clearly see the anti-America feelings in almost every sentence. This article, which states how the US has caused nothing but deaths and destruction in Iraq, is obviously trying to stir anti-American feelings amongst its readers. The article is filled with heavy loaded words for example, "civillians have been crippled,traumatised and killed" and although the passage does state facts on how the US tried to push the blame of the various events taking place in Iraq onto others, it also makes alot of assumptions and claims that eveything the US did or said on the Iraq war was a lie.
Although there are evidences,not just in this aritcle, on how the US had indeed manupilated the truth many times, we cannot simply presume that all their doings are wrong.However, thsi article is such that on reading, the reader will tend to agree to all that the aritcle states and therefore, media has once again suceeded in presenting what is preceived rather than the entire truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)