Same-sex marriage, which is termed a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family, has been a controversal issue for the longest time now. Despite there being a long history of same-sex unions around the world, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions, many people of this era still find same-sex marriages unacceptable. Certain reasons to justify their objections include religious and social issues. Globalisation refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres. Therefore, same-sex marriages might cause problems in our globalised world.
State-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society. Although this has allowed many gay couples to fulfill their desire to marry, it has generated negative response from the public. After a year into the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, fifty percent of respondents said they opposed recognizing same-sex marriages from Massachusetts ''as legal in all fifty states," and forty-six percent favored it. The respondents also said they disapproved of ''gay and lesbian couples being allowed to get married" by fifty percent to thirty-seven percent. Forty-six percent of respondents backed civil unions that would give gay couples ''some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples" while forty-one percent said they were opposed. Also, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that allowed same-sex marriages as of May 17, 2004, a shocking number of states in America have moved towards banning same-sex marriages. This shows that people cannot accept same-sex marriages, even in our globalised world. This unacceptance will escalate into riots and demonstrations by the people if nothing is being done to address this problem, and it will lead to social and economic problems.
In contrast with the negative feedback from the public about same-sex marriage, the legalization of same-sex marriages can be a good thing as well. Reports and studies have completely contradicted the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage. The study by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had legalised same-sex marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down. In addition, Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union for some time now. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the US national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000. After legalising same sex marriage, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline in divorce rates. On the other hand, the average divorce rate for states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, for 2004 and 2005, increased by 1.75%. Evidently, states which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same sex marriage friendly states. Arguably, same-sex marriages might prove to increase our standard of living in this globalised world.
Then again, same-sex marriages brings about the problem of being unable to procreate. In Anderson et al. v. King County in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006:
“The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents.”
However, being unable to procreate is not a justifiable reason to ban same-sex marriages. What about heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce? Why are they allowed to get married then? Furthermore, it is unfair to generalise and say that children are better off when they are “reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents”. Would it further a child’s well-being if his family was a broken one? Of course not.
To sum everything up, I believe that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation. There are undoubtably pros and cons when it comes to this issue, but I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. I doubt that homosexuality is a question of choice, just as proponents of 377 claim. Therefore, there is no reason to condemn homosexuals. They deserve the same human rights heterosexuals enjoy.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle). Do you agree?
I agree to a large extent.
Inequality between the rich and poor is an undeniable problem in the world. There is a worrying problem of an increasing income gap between the rich and the poor, regardless of whether in developing or developed countries. This leads to a class divide among the people. Poverty, which is defined as the condition of being extremely poor, cripples an economy and cause social problems as well. Thus, it is a problem that has to be addressed.
In my argument, I would be making much reference to Singapore.’
A strong and wealthy economy like Singapore’s, also faces the problem of a widening income gap. Even though reports show that Singapore has commendable economic growth in recent years despite the drastic shift from a manufacturing industry to a knowledge-based one, reports have also shown that incomes among the bottom thirty percent of households had fallen. Many of the less educated people in Singapore are victims of the income reductions because they fail to possess qualities that are required in a knowledge-based economy. The Singapore government has also acknowledged this problem of poverty, and has taken measures to address the matter.
To deal with the problem, the government has made changes to its political system. Even though wages of the people remains unchanged, there has been an increase in the amount of money given to render help to people in the area of health care, housing and education.
However, the government fails in identifying that poverty is also caused by the rich being rich, and not just because of the poor being poor. The Straits Times daily quoted official data showing that in the last five years, one in three students on government scholarships came from families with incomes of more than S$10,000 a month, while such families make up only thirteen percent of all Singapore households. This clearly shows that the rich are well represented in the country. This is a problem because this allows the rich to make policies and such that favor their interests more than the nations’. This way, the rich would only get richer while the poor remain poor. The government should try to adopt policies like a minimum wage law in order to protect the interest of the poor.
When the poor get poorer, they will be driven to a corner, and desperation will very likely cause them to commit crimes in order to survive. Financial burdens will cause them to steal, rob, or loot, and unhappiness about the income gap escalate into riots and arson. Our civilized society would become a wreck. Then, people do illegal activities like drug trafficking because it is easy money. The strong need to earn money fast encourages these people to take up these activities even though they are aware of the consequences. Most people do not commit crimes for fun. The cause of crimes is desperation, and desperation is usually caused by poverty.
Clearly, poverty is apparent, and may prove to be detrimental to a nation’s economy and society if it is not dealt with properly. Poverty definitely spells dissatisfaction with material wealth, and dissatisfaction among the people would cause numerous problems for a country. Evidently, the root cause of revolution and crimes is poverty.
I agree that the mother of revolution is poverty. However, crimes can also be caused by other factors. Some people commit crimes purely for the sake of getting attention or for the thrill of it, and this has nothing to do with poverty.
Inequality between the rich and poor is an undeniable problem in the world. There is a worrying problem of an increasing income gap between the rich and the poor, regardless of whether in developing or developed countries. This leads to a class divide among the people. Poverty, which is defined as the condition of being extremely poor, cripples an economy and cause social problems as well. Thus, it is a problem that has to be addressed.
In my argument, I would be making much reference to Singapore.’
A strong and wealthy economy like Singapore’s, also faces the problem of a widening income gap. Even though reports show that Singapore has commendable economic growth in recent years despite the drastic shift from a manufacturing industry to a knowledge-based one, reports have also shown that incomes among the bottom thirty percent of households had fallen. Many of the less educated people in Singapore are victims of the income reductions because they fail to possess qualities that are required in a knowledge-based economy. The Singapore government has also acknowledged this problem of poverty, and has taken measures to address the matter.
To deal with the problem, the government has made changes to its political system. Even though wages of the people remains unchanged, there has been an increase in the amount of money given to render help to people in the area of health care, housing and education.
However, the government fails in identifying that poverty is also caused by the rich being rich, and not just because of the poor being poor. The Straits Times daily quoted official data showing that in the last five years, one in three students on government scholarships came from families with incomes of more than S$10,000 a month, while such families make up only thirteen percent of all Singapore households. This clearly shows that the rich are well represented in the country. This is a problem because this allows the rich to make policies and such that favor their interests more than the nations’. This way, the rich would only get richer while the poor remain poor. The government should try to adopt policies like a minimum wage law in order to protect the interest of the poor.
When the poor get poorer, they will be driven to a corner, and desperation will very likely cause them to commit crimes in order to survive. Financial burdens will cause them to steal, rob, or loot, and unhappiness about the income gap escalate into riots and arson. Our civilized society would become a wreck. Then, people do illegal activities like drug trafficking because it is easy money. The strong need to earn money fast encourages these people to take up these activities even though they are aware of the consequences. Most people do not commit crimes for fun. The cause of crimes is desperation, and desperation is usually caused by poverty.
Clearly, poverty is apparent, and may prove to be detrimental to a nation’s economy and society if it is not dealt with properly. Poverty definitely spells dissatisfaction with material wealth, and dissatisfaction among the people would cause numerous problems for a country. Evidently, the root cause of revolution and crimes is poverty.
I agree that the mother of revolution is poverty. However, crimes can also be caused by other factors. Some people commit crimes purely for the sake of getting attention or for the thrill of it, and this has nothing to do with poverty.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Forms of Discrimination
Lookism
Definition: Discrimination or prejudice against people based on their appearance.
Lookism in all spheres (creditst to lookism.info)Corelations to other forms of discrimination (creditst to lookism.info)
Ageism
Definition: Discrimination based on age, especially prejudice against the elderly.
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ageism.html
Xenophobia
Definition: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
Disablism
Definition: discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/disablism
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/closerlook/000947.html
Sunday, July 1, 2007
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view should be adopted?
http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm
Both articles were well written and well substantiated, and both authors have managed to argue their stand. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I strongly believe that Zsofia Szilagyi’s view should be adopted instead of Peter Singer’s. More focus should be placed on social responsibility than on the freedom of expression because a lack in the former will lead to a potential threat to national security. According to Singer’s article, ‘if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth”’. Nevertheless, Szilagyi’s article argues that although freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy, different people tend to have different interpretations of the messages released by the press, making it impossible to fully understand what exactly is the ‘living truth’ being discussed. The press has be responsible and sensitive towards certain issues regarding races and religions, especially. An analogy is that these issues are like balloons – when they are poked with something sharp, they will burst with a deafening sound. Also, Singer’s article states that without the freedom of expression, ‘human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock’, but isn’t this roadblock the reason why people of different beliefs and races can live in harmony in countries like Singapore till this day? Roadblocks are set up for a reason.
Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan nation that has once failed to see the importance of racial harmony and paid a price for it. Singapore experienced racial riots as early as 1950 (Maria Hertogh riots), until 1969 (spill-over of the May 13 Incident in Malaysia) because there were misunderstandings between the different races. The various races were unaware of one another’s cultures and beliefs, and the insensitivity towards one particular race triggered the riots. It was a time of serious racial tension and violence. Many lost their lives during these riots, others were injured, and public properties were damaged. It was a period of time when everyone lived in fear and uncertainty. The upsetting thing about this is that it could have been prevented. The Singapore government learnt their lesson from these events and decided to pay a huge amount of attention in ensuring racial harmony in Singapore. We are taught the importance of living in harmony with one another and the consequences that will follow if we fail to do so. Even though much effort is put into this, a balloon is still a balloon – racial issues are still as sensitive as ever. Therefore, to ensure that history does not repeat itself, Szilagyi’s views should be adopted instead of Singer’s. Responsibility should be placed before the freedom of expression.
Both articles were well written and well substantiated, and both authors have managed to argue their stand. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I strongly believe that Zsofia Szilagyi’s view should be adopted instead of Peter Singer’s. More focus should be placed on social responsibility than on the freedom of expression because a lack in the former will lead to a potential threat to national security. According to Singer’s article, ‘if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth”’. Nevertheless, Szilagyi’s article argues that although freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy, different people tend to have different interpretations of the messages released by the press, making it impossible to fully understand what exactly is the ‘living truth’ being discussed. The press has be responsible and sensitive towards certain issues regarding races and religions, especially. An analogy is that these issues are like balloons – when they are poked with something sharp, they will burst with a deafening sound. Also, Singer’s article states that without the freedom of expression, ‘human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock’, but isn’t this roadblock the reason why people of different beliefs and races can live in harmony in countries like Singapore till this day? Roadblocks are set up for a reason.
Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan nation that has once failed to see the importance of racial harmony and paid a price for it. Singapore experienced racial riots as early as 1950 (Maria Hertogh riots), until 1969 (spill-over of the May 13 Incident in Malaysia) because there were misunderstandings between the different races. The various races were unaware of one another’s cultures and beliefs, and the insensitivity towards one particular race triggered the riots. It was a time of serious racial tension and violence. Many lost their lives during these riots, others were injured, and public properties were damaged. It was a period of time when everyone lived in fear and uncertainty. The upsetting thing about this is that it could have been prevented. The Singapore government learnt their lesson from these events and decided to pay a huge amount of attention in ensuring racial harmony in Singapore. We are taught the importance of living in harmony with one another and the consequences that will follow if we fail to do so. Even though much effort is put into this, a balloon is still a balloon – racial issues are still as sensitive as ever. Therefore, to ensure that history does not repeat itself, Szilagyi’s views should be adopted instead of Singer’s. Responsibility should be placed before the freedom of expression.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
''The death penalty is murder and should be abolished''. Do you agree? State your reasons.
I agree with the statement to a large extent.
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. A crime is considered a capital crime once it threatens national security. Some examples of capital crimes are first degree murder, drug trafficking, terrorist activities and treason. The United States, Japan, Singapore and South Korea are the only developed countries that practise capital punishment.
I believe that the death penalty should be abolished due to various reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, two wrongs do not make a right. It is not justifiable to take a felon’s life just because he caused harm to others, because that does not solve anything. No one has the right to take the life of another fellow human being even if he is a sinner, because we are imperfect ourselves.
In addition, there might be irreversibility in miscarriages of justice. As what Voltaire, the French philosopher from the seventeenth century said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one”. There have been cases whereby innocent people were sentenced to death, even in recent years. This kind of error totally disgusts me because its people’s precious lives that we are talking about here! An execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified.
Moreover, surprisingly, it has been proven that capital punishment does not deter crime. According to scientific studies, executions are not any more effective in preventing people from committing crimes than long prison sentences. Interestingly, I have also read that states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Apparently, studies have shown that the South accounts for 80% of executions in the United States, but yet it has the highest regional murder rate.
Finally, the death row can take years before it is carried out and it actually costs far more to execute a person than to imprison him for life. Not forgetting, this heavy cost is actually borne by taxpayers. It does not make sense to get the working population to literally pay for the criminal’s crime.
However, the death penalty also has its purposes. Crimes like murder would only be taken seriously if the penalty for committing the crime is equally as serious. Without a severe punishment like the death penalty, a severe crime would fail to seem as severe. Edward Irving Koch, United States representative from 1969 to 1977 and the Mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, once said, “It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
In my opinion, rehabilitation is a much better alternative to the death penalty. We should put in the effort to restore a criminal to a useful life, one that they contribute to themselves and to society, through education or therapy. Allow them to realise and make up for all their wrong doings. Punish them by making them suffer from feelings of guilt rather than subjecting them to cruel forms of execution.
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. A crime is considered a capital crime once it threatens national security. Some examples of capital crimes are first degree murder, drug trafficking, terrorist activities and treason. The United States, Japan, Singapore and South Korea are the only developed countries that practise capital punishment.
I believe that the death penalty should be abolished due to various reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, two wrongs do not make a right. It is not justifiable to take a felon’s life just because he caused harm to others, because that does not solve anything. No one has the right to take the life of another fellow human being even if he is a sinner, because we are imperfect ourselves.
In addition, there might be irreversibility in miscarriages of justice. As what Voltaire, the French philosopher from the seventeenth century said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one”. There have been cases whereby innocent people were sentenced to death, even in recent years. This kind of error totally disgusts me because its people’s precious lives that we are talking about here! An execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified.
Moreover, surprisingly, it has been proven that capital punishment does not deter crime. According to scientific studies, executions are not any more effective in preventing people from committing crimes than long prison sentences. Interestingly, I have also read that states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Apparently, studies have shown that the South accounts for 80% of executions in the United States, but yet it has the highest regional murder rate.
Finally, the death row can take years before it is carried out and it actually costs far more to execute a person than to imprison him for life. Not forgetting, this heavy cost is actually borne by taxpayers. It does not make sense to get the working population to literally pay for the criminal’s crime.
However, the death penalty also has its purposes. Crimes like murder would only be taken seriously if the penalty for committing the crime is equally as serious. Without a severe punishment like the death penalty, a severe crime would fail to seem as severe. Edward Irving Koch, United States representative from 1969 to 1977 and the Mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, once said, “It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
In my opinion, rehabilitation is a much better alternative to the death penalty. We should put in the effort to restore a criminal to a useful life, one that they contribute to themselves and to society, through education or therapy. Allow them to realise and make up for all their wrong doings. Punish them by making them suffer from feelings of guilt rather than subjecting them to cruel forms of execution.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.
In our society, there is certain sensitivity towards certain issues like religion and politics. You can get yourself into a lot of trouble if you should be careless in the way you speak about these issues. Therefore, most of us choose to avoid them, thus resulting in the existence of what we call, social taboos. Social taboos include pornography, racial differences and violence.
Censorship came about as a mean to protect everyone’s best interest, and to ensure national security. With censorship, anything that is a potential threat to national security is considered unsuitable or offensive for viewing, and will be removed before releasing the film or book, etc, to the public.
On one hand, censorship is somewhat necessary. First off, there are groups of people who need to be sheltered from the truth, namely children and the weak-minded. Children require the protection because of their innocent nature. Knowing too much might do them more harm than good if they are unable to handle the information. They deserve the chance to live in a fairytale-like world while they grow up. The weak-minded need protection as well because they might go about facing these issues with the wrong approach.
In addition, censorship protects the well-being of people. People might re-enact what they see or read. “Monkey see, monkey do”, right? What would happen if a child decided to get violent with his peers after watching a very gory film? People are going to get hurt, unnecessarily.
Most importantly, like what I have mentioned in the beginning, censorship helps to maintain peace and social stability. If sensitive issues are brought up in an offensive manner, certain groups of people might be enraged, causing our national security to be threatened. Then all hell will break lose. Riots and violent acts might occur, resulting in bloodshed.
However, there are always two sides to a coin. Censorship can be unnecessary as well. To rebut the point on protecting children from the truth, censorship would only delay education. Children will grow up to be naïve. Ultimately, this will only lead to them becoming one of the weak-minded.
Furthermore, censorship shields people from reality. The down side of that is that people will become unaware of what is really happening around them. You become ignorant about important issues.
Moreover, you become simple-minded. Since you were shield from reality, you are at a lost when you finally face these issues later on in life, not being able to think critically. Your mentality of the world is child-like, and your level of maturity will be pathetic.
I personally feel that censorship might not be that necessary. There are other more mature ways of dealing with sensitive issues, like through explanations. Expose and then educate people on these issues instead of avoiding them. That way, people are aware of things happening around them, and understand how to go about dealing with these social taboos in a mature and careful manner. The way I see it, that would be a win-win situation. People get to know about reality, yet national security can still be protected.
Censorship came about as a mean to protect everyone’s best interest, and to ensure national security. With censorship, anything that is a potential threat to national security is considered unsuitable or offensive for viewing, and will be removed before releasing the film or book, etc, to the public.
On one hand, censorship is somewhat necessary. First off, there are groups of people who need to be sheltered from the truth, namely children and the weak-minded. Children require the protection because of their innocent nature. Knowing too much might do them more harm than good if they are unable to handle the information. They deserve the chance to live in a fairytale-like world while they grow up. The weak-minded need protection as well because they might go about facing these issues with the wrong approach.
In addition, censorship protects the well-being of people. People might re-enact what they see or read. “Monkey see, monkey do”, right? What would happen if a child decided to get violent with his peers after watching a very gory film? People are going to get hurt, unnecessarily.
Most importantly, like what I have mentioned in the beginning, censorship helps to maintain peace and social stability. If sensitive issues are brought up in an offensive manner, certain groups of people might be enraged, causing our national security to be threatened. Then all hell will break lose. Riots and violent acts might occur, resulting in bloodshed.
However, there are always two sides to a coin. Censorship can be unnecessary as well. To rebut the point on protecting children from the truth, censorship would only delay education. Children will grow up to be naïve. Ultimately, this will only lead to them becoming one of the weak-minded.
Furthermore, censorship shields people from reality. The down side of that is that people will become unaware of what is really happening around them. You become ignorant about important issues.
Moreover, you become simple-minded. Since you were shield from reality, you are at a lost when you finally face these issues later on in life, not being able to think critically. Your mentality of the world is child-like, and your level of maturity will be pathetic.
I personally feel that censorship might not be that necessary. There are other more mature ways of dealing with sensitive issues, like through explanations. Expose and then educate people on these issues instead of avoiding them. That way, people are aware of things happening around them, and understand how to go about dealing with these social taboos in a mature and careful manner. The way I see it, that would be a win-win situation. People get to know about reality, yet national security can still be protected.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
How does the media and its subjective perception affect the way this incident was handled?
I refer to the article entitled “Singapore swimmers in hot water” (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/268154/1/.html).
The media is a medium that is used to pass information to people. However, exactly how accurate is a piece of information released by the media? As far as I know, the media is a powerful tool, but also a powerfully scary one. It can meddle with our emotions and views, simply just by restricting what we know, and making us believe what they want us to believe.
Addressing the issue, the reporter who snapped a shot of the young Singaporean swimmers smiling during the disqualification of the American team obviously wanted to get these swimmers in trouble, and succeeded in doing so. When people see that picture of the Singaporean swimmers smiling, they believe whatever is reported. After all, “Seeing is believing”, right? Most people wouldn’t consider the hidden agenda behind it. That was how matters blew up.
People became furious with the Singaporean swimmers, and naturally, ill feelings were harbored towards the country, Singapore, as a whole. The matter seemed personal, making it look like the Singaporeans had no respect for their fellow sportsmen as they were mocking them. That was why the Singapore authorities had to step in the clear up this matter. It wasn’t just about the 2 Singaporean swimmers anymore as the reputation of Singapore was at stake. Therefore, Singapore had to face the hassle of arguing that false accusations were made against their swimmers. Powerful people in big organizations like the Singapore Sports Council and Singapore Swimming Association had to step in to clear up this misunderstanding.
If it weren’t for the media and its subjective perception, the matter would not have escalated to such a point. If you think about it, the matter was nothing worth reporting about. The shot of the reactions of the 2 swimmers just happened to portray their emotions wrongly, and the media used that to play with our perception. Therefore, a mountain was made out of a molehill, and this affected the way the incident was handled.
The media is a medium that is used to pass information to people. However, exactly how accurate is a piece of information released by the media? As far as I know, the media is a powerful tool, but also a powerfully scary one. It can meddle with our emotions and views, simply just by restricting what we know, and making us believe what they want us to believe.
Addressing the issue, the reporter who snapped a shot of the young Singaporean swimmers smiling during the disqualification of the American team obviously wanted to get these swimmers in trouble, and succeeded in doing so. When people see that picture of the Singaporean swimmers smiling, they believe whatever is reported. After all, “Seeing is believing”, right? Most people wouldn’t consider the hidden agenda behind it. That was how matters blew up.
People became furious with the Singaporean swimmers, and naturally, ill feelings were harbored towards the country, Singapore, as a whole. The matter seemed personal, making it look like the Singaporeans had no respect for their fellow sportsmen as they were mocking them. That was why the Singapore authorities had to step in the clear up this matter. It wasn’t just about the 2 Singaporean swimmers anymore as the reputation of Singapore was at stake. Therefore, Singapore had to face the hassle of arguing that false accusations were made against their swimmers. Powerful people in big organizations like the Singapore Sports Council and Singapore Swimming Association had to step in to clear up this misunderstanding.
If it weren’t for the media and its subjective perception, the matter would not have escalated to such a point. If you think about it, the matter was nothing worth reporting about. The shot of the reactions of the 2 swimmers just happened to portray their emotions wrongly, and the media used that to play with our perception. Therefore, a mountain was made out of a molehill, and this affected the way the incident was handled.
Monday, January 29, 2007
"The family plays a critical role in our society. Do you agree?"
i agree with this statement to a certain extent.
the family provides things like comfort, financial and emotional support. statistics have shown that when someone is feeling down, many of them would confide in their family members. the family also provides financial support because it pays for the school fees of the children in the family, allowing them to receive education. it also helps to educate and nuture the young, letting them develop various values like filial piety, compassion and respect. moreover, the family is a very important and effective socialization agent because it helps to impart positive values to children.
however, the family might not play such a critical role because there are other agents which play a role in the society. one example would be the mass media. through the television, radio and internet, people can learn the right values as well.
another agent to be taken into consideration is friends. friends can sometimes have a more positive influence on people compared to the family. in my opinion, many youths prefer to listen to their friends rather than to their family members. therefore, friends can effectively impart positive values to people.
in conclusion, the family does play a critical role in our society, but there are also other agents available that undoubtedly also have a part to play in society.
the family provides things like comfort, financial and emotional support. statistics have shown that when someone is feeling down, many of them would confide in their family members. the family also provides financial support because it pays for the school fees of the children in the family, allowing them to receive education. it also helps to educate and nuture the young, letting them develop various values like filial piety, compassion and respect. moreover, the family is a very important and effective socialization agent because it helps to impart positive values to children.
however, the family might not play such a critical role because there are other agents which play a role in the society. one example would be the mass media. through the television, radio and internet, people can learn the right values as well.
another agent to be taken into consideration is friends. friends can sometimes have a more positive influence on people compared to the family. in my opinion, many youths prefer to listen to their friends rather than to their family members. therefore, friends can effectively impart positive values to people.
in conclusion, the family does play a critical role in our society, but there are also other agents available that undoubtedly also have a part to play in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)