Saturday, August 13, 2011
Justice and Mercy in our present world : Do you think justice and mercy can co-exist?
Justice and Mercy in our present world: Do you think justice and mercy can co-exist?
Yes, I do believe that justice and mercy cannot co-exist. To have justice is to give a person a punishment that he deserves for the act that he committed, regardless of his circumstances, any bias towards him, and placing pity out of the picture. However, mercy will remove the harsh punishment from justice. With mercy, the punishments will be "soft" and ultimately will not serve the effect of deterring others from performing the harmful acts, therefore getting in the way of justice being served.
Also, people may be targeted to make use of their merciful nature. Once people learn that you are merciful, they most likely will try to take advantage of you, or commit harmful acts to you instead of to others as they know that your mercy will come through and no severe punishment will be mete out. Who knows to what extent that this can happen, possibly murder victims can even be acquitted for their crimes due to a merciful plaintiff.
In conclusion, justice and mercy cannot co-exist
Also, people may be targeted to make use of their merciful nature. Once people learn that you are merciful, they most likely will try to take advantage of you, or commit harmful acts to you instead of to others as they know that your mercy will come through and no severe punishment will be mete out. Who knows to what extent that this can happen, possibly murder victims can even be acquitted for their crimes due to a merciful plaintiff.
In conclusion, justice and mercy cannot co-exist
Term 3 week 4 (Shylock)
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is to appeal to the public and the Queen. The Elizabethan Era was a time of antisemitism, when there was much prejudice against the Jews. Shakespeare could have created Shylock, a jew who was mocked and mistreated by others, so that he would be able to attract public viewers, and also not offend the Queen or the public by going against the act of antisemitism.
I think Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is to appeal to the public and the Queen. The Elizabethan Era was a time of antisemitism, when there was much prejudice against the Jews. Shakespeare could have created Shylock, a jew who was mocked and mistreated by others, so that he would be able to attract public viewers, and also not offend the Queen or the public by going against the act of antisemitism.
A few examples of the mistreatment of Shylock are as follows:
Insults from Antonio: Act 1 Scene 3, Act 2 Scene 8
Description of poor treatment of Shylock by Antonio (even spitting on him): Act 1 Scene 3
Conversation between Bassanio and Launcelot mocking Shylock: Act 2 Scene 2
Shylock portrayed as a cruel man: Act 4 Scene 1 (trial scene where Shylock kept going after a pound of Antonio's flesh)
Term 3 Week 4
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
Jim roger's main arguement is that children need to have a wide range of knowledge of languages, especially Chinese, in order to succeed in the future.
Jim Roger moved from America to Singapore, just so that his daughter may learn both chinese and english at the same time. He also said that China is going to become the next business center of the world, which is why it is so important for one to learn chinese.
I agree with Jim Roger's point of view, as we have to do as the romans do in rome. It is not very possible for us to seal deals with Chinese businessmen in English. Instead, if you speak to them in Chinese, they may be touched by your sincerity and feel more comfortable talking with you, giving you a better chance. Even in schools, Chinese is one of the more important languages.
Moreover, you can never know what kind of people you will meet in the future. Whether arabian, chinese, english, polish, they will always feel more comfortable when you converse with them in their native language, giving you a better chance to make friends with them or do business with them. So why not learn a third language for that?
Jim roger's main arguement is that children need to have a wide range of knowledge of languages, especially Chinese, in order to succeed in the future.
Jim Roger moved from America to Singapore, just so that his daughter may learn both chinese and english at the same time. He also said that China is going to become the next business center of the world, which is why it is so important for one to learn chinese.
I agree with Jim Roger's point of view, as we have to do as the romans do in rome. It is not very possible for us to seal deals with Chinese businessmen in English. Instead, if you speak to them in Chinese, they may be touched by your sincerity and feel more comfortable talking with you, giving you a better chance. Even in schools, Chinese is one of the more important languages.
Moreover, you can never know what kind of people you will meet in the future. Whether arabian, chinese, english, polish, they will always feel more comfortable when you converse with them in their native language, giving you a better chance to make friends with them or do business with them. So why not learn a third language for that?
Term 3 Week 3
(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
I agree with her view about the education system in Singapore. As I progress further in the education system, I find myself questioning less, and just accepting facts as they are. Many lessons indeed just require memorising of facts, and nothing more. An example would be of the Integrated Humanities(IH) in Hwa Chong. All the while I have just been required to have all the facts at the back of my hand, and by regurgitating the facts, I have been able to achieve an A1 standard. Even the teachers ask us to memorise and memorise and memorise, like it is the "holy" method of obtaining an A1.
Secondly, the development of our moral character has been fading out as I go to a higher grade. Morals cannot be taught, but instead only people can influence the ones around him to have the correct morals. Even if the moral values are reinforced in lessons, the lessons are often shunned and replaced with the more "practical" lessons of the core subjects, but is this the correct approach? One may be bankrupt and not have any possessions, but must never become morally bankrupt. Morals should be of the top priority, but a lot of us are getting the signals that even if you are a delinquent, as long as you excel in your studies, nothing else matters.
As much as we hate to admit it, this is the situation of the Singapore education system, which will ultimately just produce robots with little or none creativity. No wonder the americans are generally the innovators of the largest brands in the world, with their independent and free education system that encourages creativity.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
I feel that an ideal education is possible, but first the study oriented environment in Singapore should be abolished. Instead of having everyone being knowledgable in many things, we should just have people specialise completely in a subject or two, hence reducing the amount of time wasted in teaching the useless subjects that the students will probably never use for the rest of their adult life. This frees up time for daydreaming, or concocting up great ideas for the future, which will probably benefit us more.
The ideal education would be of the mix of moral and information being passed on to students. However, instead of morals being taught in class, I believe that bringing the students out for them to perform the morally correct actions themselves, and feel the joy in doing so, will be a much practical way. This will imprint the good feeling of doing the correct thing into the students' minds, hence making them repeat the action the next time.
I agree with her view about the education system in Singapore. As I progress further in the education system, I find myself questioning less, and just accepting facts as they are. Many lessons indeed just require memorising of facts, and nothing more. An example would be of the Integrated Humanities(IH) in Hwa Chong. All the while I have just been required to have all the facts at the back of my hand, and by regurgitating the facts, I have been able to achieve an A1 standard. Even the teachers ask us to memorise and memorise and memorise, like it is the "holy" method of obtaining an A1.
Secondly, the development of our moral character has been fading out as I go to a higher grade. Morals cannot be taught, but instead only people can influence the ones around him to have the correct morals. Even if the moral values are reinforced in lessons, the lessons are often shunned and replaced with the more "practical" lessons of the core subjects, but is this the correct approach? One may be bankrupt and not have any possessions, but must never become morally bankrupt. Morals should be of the top priority, but a lot of us are getting the signals that even if you are a delinquent, as long as you excel in your studies, nothing else matters.
As much as we hate to admit it, this is the situation of the Singapore education system, which will ultimately just produce robots with little or none creativity. No wonder the americans are generally the innovators of the largest brands in the world, with their independent and free education system that encourages creativity.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
I feel that an ideal education is possible, but first the study oriented environment in Singapore should be abolished. Instead of having everyone being knowledgable in many things, we should just have people specialise completely in a subject or two, hence reducing the amount of time wasted in teaching the useless subjects that the students will probably never use for the rest of their adult life. This frees up time for daydreaming, or concocting up great ideas for the future, which will probably benefit us more.
The ideal education would be of the mix of moral and information being passed on to students. However, instead of morals being taught in class, I believe that bringing the students out for them to perform the morally correct actions themselves, and feel the joy in doing so, will be a much practical way. This will imprint the good feeling of doing the correct thing into the students' minds, hence making them repeat the action the next time.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Term 3 Week 2
Q: Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?
I believe that there indeed is a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity, and I feel that it should be treated as a commodity. Water is the fundamental thing that we living organism require for survival, and all of us have the right to have access to it, as we would die without it. However, only about or less than 1% of the water on earth is drinkable, and expensive methods have to be carried out to make the undrinkable water drinkable. It is only through the sale of the water that the capital of processing the water is gotten back, so that more water can be continued to be processed with the constant stream of money fueling the plants/factories. If this is not done, then large losses will be amounted and then soon no company or organisation will be willing to desalinate or process water for consumption.
You may say that water is a necessity for a man's survival, and hence it should be considered a human right. However if that is so, then why is food sold too? Even if water is needed for a person to live, it does not mean that we have to give it to him free of charge. If people are entitled to water and do not have to pay for it, they will not appreciate it and use water excessively, thereby wasting it. It is only through leaving water as a commodity that water is deemed precious and being conserved by the public. We have to make the masses work and pay for their water, to ensure that they do not take this privilege for granted.
I believe that there indeed is a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity, and I feel that it should be treated as a commodity. Water is the fundamental thing that we living organism require for survival, and all of us have the right to have access to it, as we would die without it. However, only about or less than 1% of the water on earth is drinkable, and expensive methods have to be carried out to make the undrinkable water drinkable. It is only through the sale of the water that the capital of processing the water is gotten back, so that more water can be continued to be processed with the constant stream of money fueling the plants/factories. If this is not done, then large losses will be amounted and then soon no company or organisation will be willing to desalinate or process water for consumption.
You may say that water is a necessity for a man's survival, and hence it should be considered a human right. However if that is so, then why is food sold too? Even if water is needed for a person to live, it does not mean that we have to give it to him free of charge. If people are entitled to water and do not have to pay for it, they will not appreciate it and use water excessively, thereby wasting it. It is only through leaving water as a commodity that water is deemed precious and being conserved by the public. We have to make the masses work and pay for their water, to ensure that they do not take this privilege for granted.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Term 3 Week 1
Q: In your opinion, should the giving of weekly days off be legislated in Singapore?
In my opinion, giving weekly days off should be legislated in Singapore. The maids work for their employers for nearly everyday of the month and it is only deserving for them to have a day off per week to rest and relax. Their job scope is handling every single household chore, in addition to taking care of children, which many of them are employed for this reason. The job that they are doing is the one that we Singaporeans are unwilling or "do not have the time" to do, and it is extremely strenuous mentally and physically for them to go through all these, sometimes even getting severely reprimanded when making an error. Giving the maids a day off per week will most probably reduce their chances of falling sick, and also keep them happy and willing to work for their employers. Moreover, through their days off, they should be able to meet and befriend other maids, and might just learn some ways to more effectively carry out her job. The maid may even opt to go for skills improvement courses, which would positively affect her life in her future, possibly helping her get a better paying job. With the legislation, we will be able to ensure that the maids are well-treated and not overworked without breaks. With their welfare taken care of, relations with the philippines and indonesia will definitely improve too. The other foreign workers are also given one day off a week, and there is no reason why maids should not be treated in a similar way. In conclusion, it is in the consideration of the welfare of the maid, and that they are not our slaves, that we have to legislate that all maids have to be given weekly days off.
In my opinion, giving weekly days off should be legislated in Singapore. The maids work for their employers for nearly everyday of the month and it is only deserving for them to have a day off per week to rest and relax. Their job scope is handling every single household chore, in addition to taking care of children, which many of them are employed for this reason. The job that they are doing is the one that we Singaporeans are unwilling or "do not have the time" to do, and it is extremely strenuous mentally and physically for them to go through all these, sometimes even getting severely reprimanded when making an error. Giving the maids a day off per week will most probably reduce their chances of falling sick, and also keep them happy and willing to work for their employers. Moreover, through their days off, they should be able to meet and befriend other maids, and might just learn some ways to more effectively carry out her job. The maid may even opt to go for skills improvement courses, which would positively affect her life in her future, possibly helping her get a better paying job. With the legislation, we will be able to ensure that the maids are well-treated and not overworked without breaks. With their welfare taken care of, relations with the philippines and indonesia will definitely improve too. The other foreign workers are also given one day off a week, and there is no reason why maids should not be treated in a similar way. In conclusion, it is in the consideration of the welfare of the maid, and that they are not our slaves, that we have to legislate that all maids have to be given weekly days off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)