Singapore is a multi-racial society consisting of many races living together in harmony. Being democratic, it therefore allows and practises freedom of expression which may sometimes be contradictive to the various beliefs that different ethnic cultures have in Singapore. The provided views by Singer firstly states his grief over his demised grandparents due to the Holocaust, alerting readers that his views are not blatantly spawned from an outsider, but on the other hand taking into account his ability to address the problem of freedom of expression despite being an indirect victim of an incident himself, his opinions can be taken seriously to a larger extent due to impartiality. Thereafter, he states strongly that the views expressed freely due to democratic policies do not change cold hard facts, henceforth such expressions do not pose significant threats to others, and that we should look to the future than dwell on the past. He then states that we should make use of freedom of expression to its fullest extent, and not limit its range leading to hindering of human progression. Sizlagyi, on the contrary, focuses on the presence of globalization and multi-culturism, hence there is an absence of barriers which limit us to a certain community. Hence social responsibility must be practised in order to limit freedom of expression so as to prevent offending other ethnic groups or communities which may spark off racial clashes or even global conflicts.
In such a country such as ours, in my opinion, it is apparent to practise szilagyi's views. It is indeed conspicuous that there are no barriers between the various ethnic groups in Singapore as we live in one community. As in Singer's case, it can be aptly described by a person raining profanities on another, but the truth remains that the latter may not be what is rudely spoken of him/her. Respect is not given to that person however. Though freedom of expression in Singapore prior to race and religious differences may be positive or negative, we are strongly fuelled by ethnic and racial differences to demean the other, and with our country having inproportionate amounts of people, freedom of expression and racism will hence be related. More of Chinese will speak against other races, thereafter leading to violent conflicts and more violation of human right laws and privileges. People will also be classified hence by race or religion, which is undesirable in a democratic society. Besides, racial conflicts are detrimental to a country's economic and social progress, and furthermore, there is no link between racial criticism and positive mankind progression, as Singer's views addresses more so on the issue on the Holocaust, which is a different issue from racial discrimination, the main problem in Singapore if freedom of expression is not controlled or limited by law.
On the other hand, Singapore cannot be flourishing in a totalitarian state. Freedom of expression must be allowed, but again be controlled by social responsibility or law. What is most important is the content of the opinions voiced, as well as the motives. To help improve government policies, or to agitate and provoke alternative racial groups may be some motives of people. As such, we must strike a balance between making use of freedom of expression for benefit, simultaneously not disrespecting or offending other racial or ethnic groups of people, henceforth a limit must exist so as to prevent going overboard on these views. Social responsibility provides the answer, whereby mature and constructive views can be voiced to help others, at the same time taking into account the beliefs and faiths, feelings and opinions of others. I feel that then will freedom of expression serve its true purpose.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Is the death penalty neccessary in society?
The implementation of the death penalty has been present ever since the medieval times of the world. It is versatile due to the many functions it serves, as well as the abundant ways it is carried out via, but these revolves around basically the main concept of using death to condemn or get rid of certain 'scum' of the society or country, government or any other authority. The debate on its existence, however, focuses on human rights on life, additionally justice as well.
People usually relate justice to getting rid of evil people. This is due to the fact that by so called killing evil people, we make life safer and better for others. Therefore, since throughout the times the main objective of death penalty is to remove criminals or scum that do people no good, but harm rather, the main benefit of the death penalty would be to prevent the latter to inflict more harm on the people, as well as to clear the atmosphere of fear and insecurity in society. Take for instance a corrupted society, leading to the decline of power of the law. Criminals are free to roam and commit crimes, instilling fear into the hearts of many as they may be victims anytime. Security and safety are hence compromised in such a place, making it a place not suitable for inhabitation. Henceforth, it is essential to get rid of these criminals by meting out punishments so that they learn their lesson so as not to repeat their mistakes such as via jail terms or caning and fines, consequently they repent from the fear of the punishments reenacting in their lives. For hardcore criminals which are seen as hopeless, or their crimes are too unpardonable, they must be removed so as to deter the possibility of repeat of these crimes which will harm the general public.
Punishments not only serve to 'persuade' a criminal to change his ways the hard way, but also to set an example for potential criminals to think twice before commiting the unlawful act. Witnessing or knowing about such punishments inflicted on the criminals deter the potential latter from doing what they should not to break the law. Coincidentally, since humans are mostly fearful of death, the death penalty would attack the core of a potential criminal's heart and mind, and with the rationality to think for their lives outweighing their desire to commit the crime, they are deterred to break the law to harm others. For instance, if people are executed for mere crimes such as in a tyrannical government, it would likely be a crime-free one. Both these points aim to deter hardcore criminals and potential criminals to commit their crimes, mentally and physically.
However, people generally despise or detest criminals for the harm and pain inflicted upon others for their own selfish gains via unethical and immoral methods. Therefore, people's judgement towards their crimes are blinded by their thirst for revenge to inflict the equal punishment on the criminal himself, hence the death penalty may be a consequence from the judgement of the punishment they truly deserve in addition to the hatred for the criminal himself, hence the punishment may be too harsh for the criminal in terms of true justice. Since the death penalty is the harshest punishment in existence, it hence should be abolished to accomodate true justice rather than a mixture of hatred and vengeance itself, by making more punishments more lenient.
In addition, every human has basic human rights, which most essentially is to preserve one's life. By executing a criminal, we are seriously infringing upon the human rights of the criminal. It is felt that we should not play god and impose death penalties on wrong-doers, since every human is counted as equal in society, and that no man is better than the other. By infringing on the most fundamental of all human rights, with the justice system practising such a punishment backed up by the government, which in turn comes up with such regulations to protect human privileges in a human society. How does that differentiate the justice system from criminals? Rather, we should leave god to do the extermination of evil himself. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around, and non-atheists would believe that criminals would get their just deserts.
In conclusion, i feel that the death penalty is indeed essential in the justice system nevertheless. We cannot compromise the safety of others, and that there is no scientific evedence of the presence of any god despite the presence of the various religions and faiths. We must take things into our own hands.
People usually relate justice to getting rid of evil people. This is due to the fact that by so called killing evil people, we make life safer and better for others. Therefore, since throughout the times the main objective of death penalty is to remove criminals or scum that do people no good, but harm rather, the main benefit of the death penalty would be to prevent the latter to inflict more harm on the people, as well as to clear the atmosphere of fear and insecurity in society. Take for instance a corrupted society, leading to the decline of power of the law. Criminals are free to roam and commit crimes, instilling fear into the hearts of many as they may be victims anytime. Security and safety are hence compromised in such a place, making it a place not suitable for inhabitation. Henceforth, it is essential to get rid of these criminals by meting out punishments so that they learn their lesson so as not to repeat their mistakes such as via jail terms or caning and fines, consequently they repent from the fear of the punishments reenacting in their lives. For hardcore criminals which are seen as hopeless, or their crimes are too unpardonable, they must be removed so as to deter the possibility of repeat of these crimes which will harm the general public.
Punishments not only serve to 'persuade' a criminal to change his ways the hard way, but also to set an example for potential criminals to think twice before commiting the unlawful act. Witnessing or knowing about such punishments inflicted on the criminals deter the potential latter from doing what they should not to break the law. Coincidentally, since humans are mostly fearful of death, the death penalty would attack the core of a potential criminal's heart and mind, and with the rationality to think for their lives outweighing their desire to commit the crime, they are deterred to break the law to harm others. For instance, if people are executed for mere crimes such as in a tyrannical government, it would likely be a crime-free one. Both these points aim to deter hardcore criminals and potential criminals to commit their crimes, mentally and physically.
However, people generally despise or detest criminals for the harm and pain inflicted upon others for their own selfish gains via unethical and immoral methods. Therefore, people's judgement towards their crimes are blinded by their thirst for revenge to inflict the equal punishment on the criminal himself, hence the death penalty may be a consequence from the judgement of the punishment they truly deserve in addition to the hatred for the criminal himself, hence the punishment may be too harsh for the criminal in terms of true justice. Since the death penalty is the harshest punishment in existence, it hence should be abolished to accomodate true justice rather than a mixture of hatred and vengeance itself, by making more punishments more lenient.
In addition, every human has basic human rights, which most essentially is to preserve one's life. By executing a criminal, we are seriously infringing upon the human rights of the criminal. It is felt that we should not play god and impose death penalties on wrong-doers, since every human is counted as equal in society, and that no man is better than the other. By infringing on the most fundamental of all human rights, with the justice system practising such a punishment backed up by the government, which in turn comes up with such regulations to protect human privileges in a human society. How does that differentiate the justice system from criminals? Rather, we should leave god to do the extermination of evil himself. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around, and non-atheists would believe that criminals would get their just deserts.
In conclusion, i feel that the death penalty is indeed essential in the justice system nevertheless. We cannot compromise the safety of others, and that there is no scientific evedence of the presence of any god despite the presence of the various religions and faiths. We must take things into our own hands.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Is censorship neccessary?
Censorship refers to the process whereby the media or any other authority examines films, publications or letters, any form of media to suppress objectionable content, such as that of explicit, obscene, pornographic, or racially or politically sensitive issues, as they might cause unrest and negative effects on society, especially if these were exposed through the media or press. It is deemed neccessary for the prevention of conflict between groups of people, uprisings or even war, or tensions among the country, to safeguard government and national interests, protecting the young and weak-minded from harmful influences, as well as ensuring right messages get across to the minds of people.
Take a racially blended country such as singapore for instance, the small island comprises chinese, indians, malays as well as less significant groups such as eurasians or indonesians.
Such a nation without proper racial harmony preservation resembles a cauldron ready to implode any minute, as tensions build up to lead to conflicts among citizens, leading to lack of peace and security within singapore. Unfortunately, racial prejudices do occur, though not rampant in singapore, but nevertheless leads to racial strife among small parties. The government reacts appropriately by censoring incidents of such conflicts, which would spark off national racial conflicts off much larger proportions, further endangering the lives and property of the citizens. Censorship in this case acts like a shield in a forest that prevents fire from spreading, protecting security interests of people by sieving out racially sensitive issues or incidents, henceforth it is an effective measure to promote racial harmony.
The childhood of a person is when it acts most like a sponge, whereby the values and images he sees make a significant impact on his later life. This usually detemines his personality, apart from the genes of his parents, as well as his character and actions. Overexposure of explicitly violent and sexually-oriented images through the media might well persuade the young that all these are part and parcel of life, and from this spawns promiscuous activity, increased crime rate or murder, or even traumatisation due to blood and gore images from movies like SAW or even 300. Such symptoms of lack of censorship leads to social problems in society, such as the threatening of law and national security from increased crime rate, additionally changing the face of society with the wide influence of media, citizens become immoral, violent, and have little principles and values to speak of. Censorship prevents this by erecting a barrier between the weak-minded and young away from explicit images, texts and videos, protecting them from harmful influences on the mind.
Every government should have the best interests of the people at heart. Therefore, it is essential that they bring the correct political, social messages across to the people via the media. Censorship of external influences or media prevents ideas that are not in line with the government's plans for the people from reaching the latter, henceforth for the benefit of the people as well as by emphasizing the correct messages, the country, society and economy for functioning efficiently. For instance, by censoring smoking commercials, correct messages of health are brought across, with its absence, by restricting wrong messages of health.
On the other hand, censorship may be unneccessary in certain aspects of people's lives, or even to the extent of being detterent to the latter. Such instances include the lack of exposure retarding the growth of youngsters, as well as the need to practise self-censorship, both of which revolves about the need to have matured people in our society.
For instance, many people relate exposure to growth, knowledge and experience. For example, the more one travels, the more knowledge and experience one gathers, the more matured and learned one becomes, the more the growth. It is true to an extent that people need to be exposed to something in order to learn about it. Additionally, however, people are reckoned mature enough to practise self-censorship via religions like christianity, whereby the 'see no evil, hear no evil' saying is used to keep a person 'pure and untainted', or simply by the determination of one's mind to keep away from such influences.
Even so, i feel that censorship is needed nevertheless. We cannot assume all people as rational or mature people and henceforth, censorship is implemented to ensure the safety and security of all by protecting them against the harmful influences of the media, such as childen or the intellectually disabled.
Take a racially blended country such as singapore for instance, the small island comprises chinese, indians, malays as well as less significant groups such as eurasians or indonesians.
Such a nation without proper racial harmony preservation resembles a cauldron ready to implode any minute, as tensions build up to lead to conflicts among citizens, leading to lack of peace and security within singapore. Unfortunately, racial prejudices do occur, though not rampant in singapore, but nevertheless leads to racial strife among small parties. The government reacts appropriately by censoring incidents of such conflicts, which would spark off national racial conflicts off much larger proportions, further endangering the lives and property of the citizens. Censorship in this case acts like a shield in a forest that prevents fire from spreading, protecting security interests of people by sieving out racially sensitive issues or incidents, henceforth it is an effective measure to promote racial harmony.
The childhood of a person is when it acts most like a sponge, whereby the values and images he sees make a significant impact on his later life. This usually detemines his personality, apart from the genes of his parents, as well as his character and actions. Overexposure of explicitly violent and sexually-oriented images through the media might well persuade the young that all these are part and parcel of life, and from this spawns promiscuous activity, increased crime rate or murder, or even traumatisation due to blood and gore images from movies like SAW or even 300. Such symptoms of lack of censorship leads to social problems in society, such as the threatening of law and national security from increased crime rate, additionally changing the face of society with the wide influence of media, citizens become immoral, violent, and have little principles and values to speak of. Censorship prevents this by erecting a barrier between the weak-minded and young away from explicit images, texts and videos, protecting them from harmful influences on the mind.
Every government should have the best interests of the people at heart. Therefore, it is essential that they bring the correct political, social messages across to the people via the media. Censorship of external influences or media prevents ideas that are not in line with the government's plans for the people from reaching the latter, henceforth for the benefit of the people as well as by emphasizing the correct messages, the country, society and economy for functioning efficiently. For instance, by censoring smoking commercials, correct messages of health are brought across, with its absence, by restricting wrong messages of health.
On the other hand, censorship may be unneccessary in certain aspects of people's lives, or even to the extent of being detterent to the latter. Such instances include the lack of exposure retarding the growth of youngsters, as well as the need to practise self-censorship, both of which revolves about the need to have matured people in our society.
For instance, many people relate exposure to growth, knowledge and experience. For example, the more one travels, the more knowledge and experience one gathers, the more matured and learned one becomes, the more the growth. It is true to an extent that people need to be exposed to something in order to learn about it. Additionally, however, people are reckoned mature enough to practise self-censorship via religions like christianity, whereby the 'see no evil, hear no evil' saying is used to keep a person 'pure and untainted', or simply by the determination of one's mind to keep away from such influences.
Even so, i feel that censorship is needed nevertheless. We cannot assume all people as rational or mature people and henceforth, censorship is implemented to ensure the safety and security of all by protecting them against the harmful influences of the media, such as childen or the intellectually disabled.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
TVBS media scandal
I refer to the article" TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan's media industry".
People are reliant on the media to obtain information, news about their many aspects of life such as weather, entertainment and current affairs. Sad to say for Taiwan, their media is an unreliable source of information, as they forsake their true purpose of existence, to serve the public by reporting accurate news, for ratings, hece they cook up news just so people tune it, regardless of the effects generated due to the fabricated lies. For instance, in this case, a TVBS journalist had filmed a heavily armed gangster making death threats to a rival mob boss, which was obviously an act just to boost ratings, with the fake guns being used and the reluctance to acknowledge the source of the video. This has led to the mobilisation of the police force to investigate the mater, as well as affected people negatively all over the country. This may reflect upon the poor state of Taiwan security, as gangsters have access to firearms, hence putting many at risk, worrying them. The time of the police force has also been compromised due to the investigation, whereby they could have contributed more towards the security of Taiwan. Other such instances include when they falsely reported that duck slaughterhouses made used of asphalt to unfeather ducks, leading to a decline in duck sales, affecting the suppliers and sellers as they had made losses due to the drop in demand.
In my opinion, the media is a powerful tool to influence the minds of the citizens as it is the link between what is happening and what we know as it aims to inform accurately so that we can respond appropriately to the situation, such as for the weather reports and stock market statistics. Hence when inaccurate information is broadcasted, people tend to react to the situations which henceforth are pointless or self-destructive. What aggravates the matter is that since the media reaches out to the masses of Taiwan, the reactions generated will produce significant impacts on the various aspects of the contry. For instance, the boycott of ducks has led to the loss of money in the poultry industry, in turn affecting the whole economy adversely, and hence the many people it consists of. Therefore, i feel that the media should be a responsible and focused media towards the people and the aim of its existence, to provide accurate news, in order to avoid large-scale unneccesary responses to false reports, as well as to inform them for their benefit.
The drop in Taiwan's media standards is due to many reasons such as the cutting of costs in news reporting, and fierce competition in the field of the latter. The extent to which the media's standards have plummeted can be gauged by the lack of trust entrusted in the media itself, such as that only 1% of majo business stakeholder groups rely and trust the media and that media watchdogs warn of an uprising crisis. From cutting corners and peer pressure spawns unethical and underhand means to achieve higher ratings so as to outdo other news reporting stations, which compromises the benefits and in turn affects negatively the citizens they should serve. The government can play a part in preventing this by merging more news stations into 1 corporation so as to eliminate competition in the field, and increasing the budget allocated to the reporting media so that they do not cut costs to compromise reporting standards.
People are reliant on the media to obtain information, news about their many aspects of life such as weather, entertainment and current affairs. Sad to say for Taiwan, their media is an unreliable source of information, as they forsake their true purpose of existence, to serve the public by reporting accurate news, for ratings, hece they cook up news just so people tune it, regardless of the effects generated due to the fabricated lies. For instance, in this case, a TVBS journalist had filmed a heavily armed gangster making death threats to a rival mob boss, which was obviously an act just to boost ratings, with the fake guns being used and the reluctance to acknowledge the source of the video. This has led to the mobilisation of the police force to investigate the mater, as well as affected people negatively all over the country. This may reflect upon the poor state of Taiwan security, as gangsters have access to firearms, hence putting many at risk, worrying them. The time of the police force has also been compromised due to the investigation, whereby they could have contributed more towards the security of Taiwan. Other such instances include when they falsely reported that duck slaughterhouses made used of asphalt to unfeather ducks, leading to a decline in duck sales, affecting the suppliers and sellers as they had made losses due to the drop in demand.
In my opinion, the media is a powerful tool to influence the minds of the citizens as it is the link between what is happening and what we know as it aims to inform accurately so that we can respond appropriately to the situation, such as for the weather reports and stock market statistics. Hence when inaccurate information is broadcasted, people tend to react to the situations which henceforth are pointless or self-destructive. What aggravates the matter is that since the media reaches out to the masses of Taiwan, the reactions generated will produce significant impacts on the various aspects of the contry. For instance, the boycott of ducks has led to the loss of money in the poultry industry, in turn affecting the whole economy adversely, and hence the many people it consists of. Therefore, i feel that the media should be a responsible and focused media towards the people and the aim of its existence, to provide accurate news, in order to avoid large-scale unneccesary responses to false reports, as well as to inform them for their benefit.
The drop in Taiwan's media standards is due to many reasons such as the cutting of costs in news reporting, and fierce competition in the field of the latter. The extent to which the media's standards have plummeted can be gauged by the lack of trust entrusted in the media itself, such as that only 1% of majo business stakeholder groups rely and trust the media and that media watchdogs warn of an uprising crisis. From cutting corners and peer pressure spawns unethical and underhand means to achieve higher ratings so as to outdo other news reporting stations, which compromises the benefits and in turn affects negatively the citizens they should serve. The government can play a part in preventing this by merging more news stations into 1 corporation so as to eliminate competition in the field, and increasing the budget allocated to the reporting media so that they do not cut costs to compromise reporting standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)