Saturday, July 07, 2007.
I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the case of Singapore. I am not trying to say that Singer’s view is wrong, however, I believe for Singapore, where we have many people of different races and religions living together, it is essentially that people do not abuse their rights of freedom of speech that they hurt other people, especially in Singapore where racial harmony is important. Thus, there must be a limit to what can be said and what cannot be said. I believe that freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
I do agree that having no limits for freedom of speech does have its advantage. With no limits, people can be honest about their views. It is only when people could honestly point out the flaws and mistakes of another can the other people learn. It is the same for the community. If people are allowed to voice out their concern in the public, many ideas can be shared and different viewpoints can be considered. Intelligent debates can then be carried, and the best solutions can then be derived. If people are not allowed to speak in public and point out major flaws and show their displeasure of something, there can be no solutions to the problem. What are wrong remain wrong. For example, if the citizens are not allowed to voice out on how a certain policy is going to negatively affect the mass community; the government will just carry on with it, resulting in much unhappiness and problems. Thus, freedom of expression is important in the sense that it helps us progress improve, and search for even better options and solutions, instead of just being happy with the current state.
However, we have to realize that because of freedom of expression, people can often make insensitive remarks and get away with it. They can use freedom of expression as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility over what they had said. I believe that should not be the way. People must realize not all views can be expressed. If insensitive remarks are made on sensitive issues, it is only going to make things worse. If everyone can be allowed to make comments on all issues with no boundary, there will certain be chaos. Instead of an intelligent debate, what we get is protest and riots. Thus, before one says something, they would have to weigh the importance and impact of saying it. If what one wants to say can bring about a good change, prompt a good discussion and able to bring out positive solutions, by all means, say it. However, if what one wants to say is not going to spark off a peaceful discussion, but a riot instead, it should be stopped. I am not saying that saying what the majority proclaims wrong is not allowed. It is only that one must see that if the need to bring the message across is more important than the need to prevent a possible protest or riot from occurring, and then decide whether he should insist on making that remark. For example, if one want so make a negative remark on a certain race group to voice out his displeasure, he must weigh if voicing out his personal displeasure is more important, or the need to maintain racial harmony and preventing a race riot is more important. This privilege of freedom of expression comes with an unspoken condition of responsibility and maturity in handling matters. Like that previous example, if a race riot did occur in Singapore, is that man able to be responsible for it? The answer is no. Thus, freedom of expression must definitely come with a social responsibility.
Next, if what one is going to say will affect a certain community, one will have to judge if the affected community is mature enough to start a discussion about it, or just stage a protest. This thus has something to do with the tone of the man making that particular remark or statement. When discussing a sensitive issue with a close friend, your tone can be very harsh and one sided and no one cares. However, if you are speaking openly in the public, the tone must not show any hint of biasness. It must be objective and impartial, so that it could spark of a thinking process within the people. You must express your views and support it, and allow people to think through about it and debate about it. If your tone is already one sided and harsh, people will not be prompted to think through about it and consider your viewpoint, instead, they will be unhappy and start staging a protest. Especially in Singapore, with many religions and races, if one person wishes to state a flaw or their unhappiness about a certain religion or race, they must make sure that their tone must not be harsh that it could offend them. Instead, the tone must be objective and pleasant, so that the religions or races could reflect on their behavior instead. No religion will teach people the wrong things. With that basis in mind, when making a remark on a religion, if your tone is pleasant, the people will definite reflect about it and allow a high quality discussion on it. Thus, freedom of expression can only be allowed people could be objective and not biased when stating their point of view, especially in the context of Singapore.
Therefore, I believe that in the context of Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s view, as I believe that if everyone is allowed to say anything, it is definitely going to be very chaotic. Thus, everyone must take note of their social responsibility, which is fulfilling the criteria of being responsible of what one says, weigh the importance of saying that thing, and adopt a pleasant tone. Thus, my concluding statement would be freedom of expression must come with social responsibility and have a limit.
10:49:00 PM
Thrid official gp postI believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the case of Singapore. I am not trying to say that Singer’s view is wrong, however, I believe for Singapore, where we have many people of different races and religions living together, it is essentially that people do not abuse their rights of freedom of speech that they hurt other people, especially in Singapore where racial harmony is important. Thus, there must be a limit to what can be said and what cannot be said. I believe that freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
I do agree that having no limits for freedom of speech does have its advantage. With no limits, people can be honest about their views. It is only when people could honestly point out the flaws and mistakes of another can the other people learn. It is the same for the community. If people are allowed to voice out their concern in the public, many ideas can be shared and different viewpoints can be considered. Intelligent debates can then be carried, and the best solutions can then be derived. If people are not allowed to speak in public and point out major flaws and show their displeasure of something, there can be no solutions to the problem. What are wrong remain wrong. For example, if the citizens are not allowed to voice out on how a certain policy is going to negatively affect the mass community; the government will just carry on with it, resulting in much unhappiness and problems. Thus, freedom of expression is important in the sense that it helps us progress improve, and search for even better options and solutions, instead of just being happy with the current state.
However, we have to realize that because of freedom of expression, people can often make insensitive remarks and get away with it. They can use freedom of expression as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility over what they had said. I believe that should not be the way. People must realize not all views can be expressed. If insensitive remarks are made on sensitive issues, it is only going to make things worse. If everyone can be allowed to make comments on all issues with no boundary, there will certain be chaos. Instead of an intelligent debate, what we get is protest and riots. Thus, before one says something, they would have to weigh the importance and impact of saying it. If what one wants to say can bring about a good change, prompt a good discussion and able to bring out positive solutions, by all means, say it. However, if what one wants to say is not going to spark off a peaceful discussion, but a riot instead, it should be stopped. I am not saying that saying what the majority proclaims wrong is not allowed. It is only that one must see that if the need to bring the message across is more important than the need to prevent a possible protest or riot from occurring, and then decide whether he should insist on making that remark. For example, if one want so make a negative remark on a certain race group to voice out his displeasure, he must weigh if voicing out his personal displeasure is more important, or the need to maintain racial harmony and preventing a race riot is more important. This privilege of freedom of expression comes with an unspoken condition of responsibility and maturity in handling matters. Like that previous example, if a race riot did occur in Singapore, is that man able to be responsible for it? The answer is no. Thus, freedom of expression must definitely come with a social responsibility.
Next, if what one is going to say will affect a certain community, one will have to judge if the affected community is mature enough to start a discussion about it, or just stage a protest. This thus has something to do with the tone of the man making that particular remark or statement. When discussing a sensitive issue with a close friend, your tone can be very harsh and one sided and no one cares. However, if you are speaking openly in the public, the tone must not show any hint of biasness. It must be objective and impartial, so that it could spark of a thinking process within the people. You must express your views and support it, and allow people to think through about it and debate about it. If your tone is already one sided and harsh, people will not be prompted to think through about it and consider your viewpoint, instead, they will be unhappy and start staging a protest. Especially in Singapore, with many religions and races, if one person wishes to state a flaw or their unhappiness about a certain religion or race, they must make sure that their tone must not be harsh that it could offend them. Instead, the tone must be objective and pleasant, so that the religions or races could reflect on their behavior instead. No religion will teach people the wrong things. With that basis in mind, when making a remark on a religion, if your tone is pleasant, the people will definite reflect about it and allow a high quality discussion on it. Thus, freedom of expression can only be allowed people could be objective and not biased when stating their point of view, especially in the context of Singapore.
Therefore, I believe that in the context of Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s view, as I believe that if everyone is allowed to say anything, it is definitely going to be very chaotic. Thus, everyone must take note of their social responsibility, which is fulfilling the criteria of being responsible of what one says, weigh the importance of saying that thing, and adopt a pleasant tone. Thus, my concluding statement would be freedom of expression must come with social responsibility and have a limit.
Sunday, May 06, 2007.
4.Juvenile crime rates are rising all round the world. How can this trend be counteracted?
As I only have to write on 2 paragraphs, I will exclude the opening and just focus on two main points...
Teach them to be appreciative of life and what they have. Teenagers nowadays are fortunate, while we are enjoying the things like computers, nice clothes we have, in another part of the world, people are dying, from aids, from illness, from malnutrition. People are worrying about having no roof over their head, no food to eat, no money to spend. That's reality. But humans are selfish and are always not satisfied with things we have, so, teenagers commit crimes to display their displeasure on something, for the fun. Furthermore, being still teenagers, we are too immature to think about consequences we have to face, and do not yet have a sense of responsibility. Nothing to worry about, and i mean serious things like financial burden, housing, family and social responsibility. So, being unaware of so many things going on, they commit crime. Thus, we have to teach them to appreciate what they have, think about how fortunate they are, and how they should be responsible and not do things without thinking. They should not make others feel low or degrade them to make themselves feel happy. SICK IDEOLOGY. Put them in a place where they are deprived of the basic necessities of life, and let them have a feel of how fortunate they actually are, and how they should show their appreciation to this gift that god has given to them by doing good things and not hurt others. They will not commit crime and risk losing all things in life if they appreciate what they have. Besides taking away basic neccesities of life, put them in a place where they have to fend for themselves, where they have to be responsible for their own life. Seriously, instil a sense of responsibility in them. If you appreciate something, you won't want to do wrong things and risk losing it. If you are responsible and mature enough to think about the repercussions of your actions, you will not do things to hurt others, your family and yourself.
Next, the usual stuffs like family. Parents should provide a nice environment for living for the child. Pleasant environment for living, and not expose the child to violence. Show them care and concern they need, and put in more effort to understand them. They are still young and learning, so parents have to be understanding and show emotional support to them. Let them know that they are not alone and there's always someone for them. Why? I mean, if they have a good environment to be in, they will not develop tendencies for violence and the want to inflict pain on others, learn not to take things for granted, and earn what they want themselves and not steal etc... If parents do not show understanding or support, teenagers will turn to bad companies. Or if they confide in friends with same problem, with low maturity, they will be led astray. Teenagers are growing and learning, thus, it is important to teach them right from wrong. During this process of growing and learning, it is their most vulnerable period of time. Thus, it is important to be quick to help them when they have troubles, make them understand that crime is not the way out to solve problems. Make them feel that they can always turn to someone when they have troubles, so that they will not turn to bad companies. Family plays a very important role. Teenagers are fragile. If they are let alone to think of things their own way, they will not know even if they are wrong, so, they need to be guided. That is where family comes in. Family must also teach them resposibility in life like mentioned above.
Lastly, we have things like how media should promote proper set of values and not show violence etc...Promote a healthy hobby and games to pass time, so they will not be bored and commit crime. Education system plays a part too.
Basically, teenagers have a choice. However, being vulnerable at such a young age, they need people to guide them and support them. So, parents, family and friends, show support!!! Teenagers' vulnerabilty makes it more important for the emotinal aspects of them to be cared for, so people should not feel that teenagers who commit crimes are bad and serve them right. If they are brought up with the correct ideology, they won't commit crime. BUT still......teenagers, don't let this be your excuse for committing crime, cause YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!! The choice of committing crime still lies in you. ------------peter parker in spiderman 3 says "you have a choice", believe him :)
3:46:00 AM
Seconde offial posting for gp blog...4.Juvenile crime rates are rising all round the world. How can this trend be counteracted?
As I only have to write on 2 paragraphs, I will exclude the opening and just focus on two main points...
Teach them to be appreciative of life and what they have. Teenagers nowadays are fortunate, while we are enjoying the things like computers, nice clothes we have, in another part of the world, people are dying, from aids, from illness, from malnutrition. People are worrying about having no roof over their head, no food to eat, no money to spend. That's reality. But humans are selfish and are always not satisfied with things we have, so, teenagers commit crimes to display their displeasure on something, for the fun. Furthermore, being still teenagers, we are too immature to think about consequences we have to face, and do not yet have a sense of responsibility. Nothing to worry about, and i mean serious things like financial burden, housing, family and social responsibility. So, being unaware of so many things going on, they commit crime. Thus, we have to teach them to appreciate what they have, think about how fortunate they are, and how they should be responsible and not do things without thinking. They should not make others feel low or degrade them to make themselves feel happy. SICK IDEOLOGY. Put them in a place where they are deprived of the basic necessities of life, and let them have a feel of how fortunate they actually are, and how they should show their appreciation to this gift that god has given to them by doing good things and not hurt others. They will not commit crime and risk losing all things in life if they appreciate what they have. Besides taking away basic neccesities of life, put them in a place where they have to fend for themselves, where they have to be responsible for their own life. Seriously, instil a sense of responsibility in them. If you appreciate something, you won't want to do wrong things and risk losing it. If you are responsible and mature enough to think about the repercussions of your actions, you will not do things to hurt others, your family and yourself.
Next, the usual stuffs like family. Parents should provide a nice environment for living for the child. Pleasant environment for living, and not expose the child to violence. Show them care and concern they need, and put in more effort to understand them. They are still young and learning, so parents have to be understanding and show emotional support to them. Let them know that they are not alone and there's always someone for them. Why? I mean, if they have a good environment to be in, they will not develop tendencies for violence and the want to inflict pain on others, learn not to take things for granted, and earn what they want themselves and not steal etc... If parents do not show understanding or support, teenagers will turn to bad companies. Or if they confide in friends with same problem, with low maturity, they will be led astray. Teenagers are growing and learning, thus, it is important to teach them right from wrong. During this process of growing and learning, it is their most vulnerable period of time. Thus, it is important to be quick to help them when they have troubles, make them understand that crime is not the way out to solve problems. Make them feel that they can always turn to someone when they have troubles, so that they will not turn to bad companies. Family plays a very important role. Teenagers are fragile. If they are let alone to think of things their own way, they will not know even if they are wrong, so, they need to be guided. That is where family comes in. Family must also teach them resposibility in life like mentioned above.
Lastly, we have things like how media should promote proper set of values and not show violence etc...Promote a healthy hobby and games to pass time, so they will not be bored and commit crime. Education system plays a part too.
Basically, teenagers have a choice. However, being vulnerable at such a young age, they need people to guide them and support them. So, parents, family and friends, show support!!! Teenagers' vulnerabilty makes it more important for the emotinal aspects of them to be cared for, so people should not feel that teenagers who commit crimes are bad and serve them right. If they are brought up with the correct ideology, they won't commit crime. BUT still......teenagers, don't let this be your excuse for committing crime, cause YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!! The choice of committing crime still lies in you. ------------peter parker in spiderman 3 says "you have a choice", believe him :)
Sunday, April 22, 2007.
Passage: A Hanging by George Owell
Qns 1:
In the first paragraph, the first part of it describes how the cell looks like and how the situation is like. After all the descriptions, the last sentence, " These were the condemned men, due to be hanged within the next week or two, " finally gives us an indication of exactly who the people are. By placing the "men to be hanged" at the end of a paragraph, it gives us the feeling of impending doom of the convicts. This shows that the author is against the ordeal of capital punishment.
Next, the metaphor of the convict being "handled like a fish still alive" is used to show that he condemns the capital punishment, as it takes away the pride from a man. A man is a man, and when he is descibed to be an animal to be controlled by others, it means that the man loses his values as a human. This shows his condemnation of capital punishment, which he felt takes away the criminal of his pride as a human being.
Further down the passage, the author uses descriptions of how the man avoided the puddle to show how the man still has pride as a human being despite being condemned by others. Thus, this further supports the point of taking away man's pride throught capital punishment.
Then, he uses diction like "healthy", "conscious" and "wrongness" to show how it is not correct to take away a man's live, in this case, a convict, even though he is still a healthy man and his "oragns are still working" . This shows that he felt that it is not right to take away a man's life even though he had done something wrong, as the man is still able to live well, and still has the ability to think consciously.
The aruthor also uses the phrase "each cry another second of life" to show his condemnation of capital punishment. Through the usage of the phrase, it shows how each second of life is important to the man. The man is making use of every single second. When we talk to people about time in our life, we use things like "every year", "that month" and "yesterday". However, now, the convivt only has seconds to think about. This shows how vulnerable his life is now. This thus makes the point that capital punishment should be comdemned, as it cuts short the man's life, and is so vulnerable that he could only cry and do nothing about it.
Lastly, irony is also used. When one convict struggled and refused to move to be hanged, the warders said "think of all the pain and trouble you are casuing us" and that "he was troublesome". The way it is mentioned, it seems like the convict, by wanting to live on, is giving others trouble. Isn't it ironic then, as having the will to live on is always said to encourage people to overcome struggles, but now, it is not an appreciated thing. The fact that the man trying to live on is described as troublesome shows the lack of respect the they have for the convict. They feel that he has no right to live on, and he should die. This shows very strongly the condemation of the capital punishment, as it is a total disrespect for a convict's life and will to live on.
Qns 2:
People for capital punishment often cited that the criminals had done a lot of harm to human beings, and should be killed so as to prevent further evil doings by them. They felt that with them living in the society, it could only bring fear to the public, and pollute the purity of the public bath. They felt that the worse punishment is to end their life, so that they would then experience the pain they had inflicted on the victims, and get their so-called retribution. Next, by having such a harsh punishment, it will deter others from committing a crime.
On the other hand, people against capital punishment often cited that it is morally wrong to end someone's life, as none of us carries the right to do so. It is violating the human rights to end someone's life. Next, people felt that by ending a convict's life, we are depriving them of a chance to change, and saying that they are incorrigible. The convicts are then being condemned, and not given a second chance to prove their worth. Furthermore, it solves the surface problem(the instant threat etc.), but not the root problems(main cause of problems etc.).
Qns 3:
I feel that capital punishment should not be allowed unless there are exceptional cases. I feel that although the criminal might have done something very wrong, or immoral, they should be given a second chance, with proper councilling. By ending the killers' life, it will not bring back the life of the victim, or in cases like drug trafficking, it will not do much to solve the ongoing problem, though it will deter more people from doing so. It is not solving the problem, and there is not much significance is doing so. By taking away the criminal's life for a crime, what are we teaching the people? Why is it that we kill someone to teach people not to kill? Isn't it ironic then, that we have to end someone's life to teach others not to end people's life. Furthermore, i believe it is ethically wrong for capital punishment. And by killing the person, we are also causing his family more sorrows, especially if he or she has a young child at home.
However, i feel that there are cases of exceptions to capital punisment. For example, when the serious offence is repeated several times already, and despite all the punishments, still decides to harm the general public. They should then be killed to prevent further evil doings and inflicting fear to the public. Next, if the offence is as serious as killing another person, but is showing no signs of remorse and attempts to change. People like serial killers and masterminds behind immoral killings should be sentenced to death also, if the proved to be conscious of what their doing and insist they are right.
2:34:00 PM
First official posting for gp blog.Passage: A Hanging by George Owell
Qns 1:
In the first paragraph, the first part of it describes how the cell looks like and how the situation is like. After all the descriptions, the last sentence, " These were the condemned men, due to be hanged within the next week or two, " finally gives us an indication of exactly who the people are. By placing the "men to be hanged" at the end of a paragraph, it gives us the feeling of impending doom of the convicts. This shows that the author is against the ordeal of capital punishment.
Next, the metaphor of the convict being "handled like a fish still alive" is used to show that he condemns the capital punishment, as it takes away the pride from a man. A man is a man, and when he is descibed to be an animal to be controlled by others, it means that the man loses his values as a human. This shows his condemnation of capital punishment, which he felt takes away the criminal of his pride as a human being.
Further down the passage, the author uses descriptions of how the man avoided the puddle to show how the man still has pride as a human being despite being condemned by others. Thus, this further supports the point of taking away man's pride throught capital punishment.
Then, he uses diction like "healthy", "conscious" and "wrongness" to show how it is not correct to take away a man's live, in this case, a convict, even though he is still a healthy man and his "oragns are still working" . This shows that he felt that it is not right to take away a man's life even though he had done something wrong, as the man is still able to live well, and still has the ability to think consciously.
The aruthor also uses the phrase "each cry another second of life" to show his condemnation of capital punishment. Through the usage of the phrase, it shows how each second of life is important to the man. The man is making use of every single second. When we talk to people about time in our life, we use things like "every year", "that month" and "yesterday". However, now, the convivt only has seconds to think about. This shows how vulnerable his life is now. This thus makes the point that capital punishment should be comdemned, as it cuts short the man's life, and is so vulnerable that he could only cry and do nothing about it.
Lastly, irony is also used. When one convict struggled and refused to move to be hanged, the warders said "think of all the pain and trouble you are casuing us" and that "he was troublesome". The way it is mentioned, it seems like the convict, by wanting to live on, is giving others trouble. Isn't it ironic then, as having the will to live on is always said to encourage people to overcome struggles, but now, it is not an appreciated thing. The fact that the man trying to live on is described as troublesome shows the lack of respect the they have for the convict. They feel that he has no right to live on, and he should die. This shows very strongly the condemation of the capital punishment, as it is a total disrespect for a convict's life and will to live on.
Qns 2:
People for capital punishment often cited that the criminals had done a lot of harm to human beings, and should be killed so as to prevent further evil doings by them. They felt that with them living in the society, it could only bring fear to the public, and pollute the purity of the public bath. They felt that the worse punishment is to end their life, so that they would then experience the pain they had inflicted on the victims, and get their so-called retribution. Next, by having such a harsh punishment, it will deter others from committing a crime.
On the other hand, people against capital punishment often cited that it is morally wrong to end someone's life, as none of us carries the right to do so. It is violating the human rights to end someone's life. Next, people felt that by ending a convict's life, we are depriving them of a chance to change, and saying that they are incorrigible. The convicts are then being condemned, and not given a second chance to prove their worth. Furthermore, it solves the surface problem(the instant threat etc.), but not the root problems(main cause of problems etc.).
Qns 3:
I feel that capital punishment should not be allowed unless there are exceptional cases. I feel that although the criminal might have done something very wrong, or immoral, they should be given a second chance, with proper councilling. By ending the killers' life, it will not bring back the life of the victim, or in cases like drug trafficking, it will not do much to solve the ongoing problem, though it will deter more people from doing so. It is not solving the problem, and there is not much significance is doing so. By taking away the criminal's life for a crime, what are we teaching the people? Why is it that we kill someone to teach people not to kill? Isn't it ironic then, that we have to end someone's life to teach others not to end people's life. Furthermore, i believe it is ethically wrong for capital punishment. And by killing the person, we are also causing his family more sorrows, especially if he or she has a young child at home.
However, i feel that there are cases of exceptions to capital punisment. For example, when the serious offence is repeated several times already, and despite all the punishments, still decides to harm the general public. They should then be killed to prevent further evil doings and inflicting fear to the public. Next, if the offence is as serious as killing another person, but is showing no signs of remorse and attempts to change. People like serial killers and masterminds behind immoral killings should be sentenced to death also, if the proved to be conscious of what their doing and insist they are right.
Monday, March 26, 2007.
Self-intro...
I am patricia lim angie. I was previously from chij secondary toa payoh. Currently, i am doing pcme in class 02/07. I like music. I like chinese and japanese songs. I think that these songs are not inferior in compared to english songs, so i hope that narrow-minded people would stop criticising chinese songs. I admire ayumi hamasaki and jay chou. Basically, they are singer-composers, which i tend to admire more. Next, i like soccer, and supports liverpool football club, favourite player being Xabi Alonso. I quite like basketball also. Basically, that's all.
7teen
ex ijtp
anderson jc
02/07
nice old song...
8:16:00 PM
This blog is basically set up for the sake of gp. For all jc ones in anderson jc, it is compulsory to have a blog to comment on gp related topics in proper english.Self-intro...
I am patricia lim angie. I was previously from chij secondary toa payoh. Currently, i am doing pcme in class 02/07. I like music. I like chinese and japanese songs. I think that these songs are not inferior in compared to english songs, so i hope that narrow-minded people would stop criticising chinese songs. I admire ayumi hamasaki and jay chou. Basically, they are singer-composers, which i tend to admire more. Next, i like soccer, and supports liverpool football club, favourite player being Xabi Alonso. I quite like basketball also. Basically, that's all.
About me...
patricia lim angie7teen
ex ijtp
anderson jc
02/07
Now Playing...
nice old song...