Can poverty be ever eradicated?

Whenever I come across pictures or stills depicting the suffering of people under the poverty line, it just brings tears to my eyes and reminds me of how fortunate I am to be who I am and where I am today. Sometimes, I would wonder if there are any ways to put off poverty and bring happiness and hope into these people’s lives. However, I personally believe that we can eradicate poverty although it’s a long way ahead and difficult to achieve.

To solve the problem of poverty we must think of the reasons behind it. Some of the causes of poverty include corruption, poor leadership and of course as what Kamala Sarup states the geographical location and technological accessibility of a country too.

If we observe the world carefully we will find that it’s in those countries where poor leadership and corruption are ripe does poverty prevails in. Corruption creates inequality and worsens the state of the poor. A wealthy person would easily have dealings under the table and get hold of opportunities which might have been otherwise available to the poor. As life’s opportunities are taken up by the rich, very little chances are given to the poor to progress in life. Even if they progress, it is very insignificant compared to the rate of progress seen in the rich. Since the progress in the poor never or rarely equates to the rich’s there will always be widening income gaps and poverty as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Poor leadership would also fail to eradicate poverty as its under the management of a nation that a country progresses. If the government leaders concentrate in filling up their pockets in lieu of the Nation’s surely the country will not get far. Furthermore, the ability to steer off the country from downfalls and to revive it when it falls into economic downfalls relies upon the capabilities of its leaders. As such the leaders of a Nation play a key role controlling its wealth.

The issue of corruption and poor leadership can definitely be tackled as we can see from living examples of countries like ours and Britain where the percentage of these detriments are very small and insignificant.

As stated, technological advancements are based on capital which is based on technology. This forms a vicious cycle disallowing the poor nations to penetrate it. However, this problem can be tackled. The nations of the world are obliged to help one another when in need because we are all interdependent. Thus if the richer countries help the poorer ones by giving financial aid, poverty can definitely be eradicated. Of course this would not prove to be successful in the long run as we cannot possible expect the richer nations to carry and share the burden of supporting the poor for lifelong. It is definitely more lucrative to teach man how to earn money and support himself than to support him for life. Thus even if countries help the nations in need by giving financial aid the poorer nations must be proactive in learning about ways to stay in good stead and be independent.

Of course those countries poised near landmarks and seas have an added advantage over countries not within the vincity of water bodies. For example, countries like Singapore is able to use its geographical location to its advantage by making it into an attractive port. This has helped the Nation to experience economic growth due to trade via the sea.

As such it is clear that though there are factors hindering the attempts to eradicate poverty and the issue seems to be a mix of unimaginable complexity and difficulties, it is certainly possible to save the poor from poverty if we all work together. Nations must, as promised, donate o.7% of their income to the welfare of countries with widespread poverty. However, we must not forget that every country, even if it is world powers like America, has its own set of poverty and this would give these nations a valid reason to use the promised money for their own welfare because to them they are experiencing poverty in their country too. Since, poverty is a relative concept it varies widely but I am sure we can clearly see which level of poverty or poorness is unacceptable and appalling and requires immediate attention from the world.

For now I start it, look at Nepal, Africa and Calcutta to get a real taste of poverty.

Are you for or against the death penalty?

Death penalty is perhaps the cruelest form of retribution in the world.
It is usually issued for First-class murders in most of the countries and can be often given for cruel rape cases involving child abuse. Though it may seem appropriate to punish by capital punishment for crimes like these, I personally disagree with the death penalty and reasons given to justify it.

A punishment is often given to deter more crimes and if a punishment fails to fulfill this criterion, can it be doomed as being ineffective? Well it can, because a punishment is not given to seek revenge or to vent our anger. It is given for the benefit of the society as a whole. According to Amnesty International, capital punishment does not deter crime as much as other punishments do.

In fact, in Iraq, where capital punishment is still in use, the number of deaths and homicides has increased largely compared to two years ago when the capital punishment was not in use yet. Supported by the passage, criminologists have shown, statistically, that in US states where convicts are executed, serious crimes have not diminished. Moreover, recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2006, 30 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975 and the second lowest rate in three decades.

From this it is clear that death penalty is failing to achieve concrete results.

Some people might argue that it is a beneficial trade off if by the execution of one we can save three lives. However, what we must ask ourselves is although in the short term it may be beneficial however in the long term death penalty will still fail to serve it basis for implementing- to deter crimes. Thucydides, in recounting the Athenians’ discussion of what penalty to impose on the rebellious Mytilenians, noted that “the death penalty has been laid down for many offenses, yet people still take risks when they feel sufficiently confident; it is impossible for human nature, once seriously set upon a certain course, to be prevented from following that course by the force of law or by any other means of intimidation whatsoever.” This clearly indicates that death penalty is not the way to go if we want to deter crimes.

Moreover, death penalty holds the serious danger of executing the innocent.

Since 1973, 124 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005, one in 2006 and one so far in 2007. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The state of Florida has the highest number of 22 exonerations.

Execution of the innocent is not only confined to the USA. It is found in almost all nations which still implement it. As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Of course some people would say that if that is the case, give the death penalty to only people convicted of murders and supported by strong evidences. What is more, it is unlikely that innocents will be executed now that we have sophiscated technologies like DNA finger printing in helping us to indentify convicts. But by doing this, are we near anywhere deterring crimes? It is more like seeking revenge using the law, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” it seems. Killing a life is an ungrateful and degrading thing to do. Doing it via the Law is not going to change it.

Reference: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

www.project-syndicate.org

The Morality of Capital Punishment by Gary S. Becker

Beyond the Death Penalty Debate by Antonio Cassese

‘I am a millionaire. That is my religion.’ To what extent has the pursuit of wealth become the modern goal? (2000)

Man is now looked upon with respect for the wealth he holds in terms of money, education and skills. All of which cost a lot of money to gain in the world today. It has become a honourable thing to pursue wealth and wealth alone. Though this mad craze for wealth started with the West ‘s conquests of the rest of the world, to rob them of their wealth when Industrial Revolution first sprang up, it has taken firm root all over the world as well.

A successful man can take any form. He could be a writer, a great sportsman, an artist and so on. However, most often the purpose of a person becoming successful as a sportsman, writer or artist is to enjoy the wealth such achievements will bring. The main distinction of Tiger Woods is the millions he earns, the main claim to greatness of Bill Gates is that he is a billionaire (although he is not the first in the list; second to Carlos Slim who is the current wealthiest man in the world) and the main thing we know about Stephen King is the millions he earns per book.

However, this was not the case just a century ago. Actors and sportsman and writers had to work hard to earn what is just sufficient for them. They did not have the excess money then like they do now to be arrogant and defiant of the rest of the world. Today when we mention a successful actor we mean he is paid several million dollars per movie and not so much that he moves us with his acting skills.

Politicians work hard to gain power. Some of them however, make all kinds of promises and buy votes for themselves in the prospect of striking it rich for themselves and for their families through politics. As such, working for the best of the countryman becomes a goal far below their list. Often politicians are voted in the believe that apart from enriching themselves they would do something for the nation too as opposed to the other candidates who come in pursuit for wealth only. The factor of enriching themselves is a given.

However, it can be argued that they were and they are stills souls in the world like Mother Theresa who abhor money and wealth. But it is clear that she and others like her are in a minority. For every story covering great souls who live beyond money, we can find a few articles on stars making it rich and even richer. It is surprising that a movie star can demand over 50 million dollars for a single movie. However, no one is disturbed by this trend. On the contrary, we are filled with admiration. Often stories of people like Mother Theresa are likely to be smothered among other “more important” stories.

It is therefore true that the pursuit of wealth has become the modern goal. Wealth is not meant by what one needs to live a good live. It refers to untold wealth, wealth more than one will ever need in a lifetime, more than even one can spend.

Sometimes we are prompted to ask. What about people who have worked solely for the benefits of the world? What happened to the spirit of adventure and the other values of man which made human race so great? What about the spirit of great inventors and explorers who pursued their interests for their own sakes rather than for wealth? Well such people are again a in a minority. The pursuit of wealth has overtaken all other pursuits.

What do you think are some of the challenges facing Singapore as it plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?

Singapore is no longer a multi-racial society comprising of Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others. In fact the word ‘others’ had for a long time referred to Caucasians. However, it is no longer the case as more and more foreign expatriates and tourists are reaching Singapore. With almost 25 percent of the population being born elsewhere and migrating to Singapore, there is urgent need for us to relate to these people like they are one of us Singaporeans. Although we try to adjust and tolerate each other’s differences, in some circumstances we let the evil in us to take control of us such that we come prejudiced against people of different races and religion from ours especially when they are expatriates.

While it is natural for people to relate better with people of their own race and religion, we cannot afford that kind of disparity to evolve in Singapore. No matter what we have to accept each other and work towards a common goal of achieving the best for ourselves and for our country.

Easy to say as it is, achieving the common sense of ‘We are one’ feelings among all of us is difficult but not impossible. The increasing number of foreigners gaining entry into Singapore and trying to be part of ‘Us’ all the more emphasizes the need for us to recognize ‘Them’ as One.

Singaporeans could play their part by stop resenting foreign workers who take away their jobs while turning a blind eye to those who work in blue-collar jobs they would not even consider. At the same time, the new guests in our country must also do their part to appreciate and understand us.

There is disparity already existing between the Singapore Indians and the Indian Indians. They simply seem to think the other as a rival. Although they are under a common umbrella as Indians, differences in their practices and habits has led to each other considering the other as a ‘Not my kind’ of person.

It is important for these people to come out of their shells and face the world which is so dynamic with a myriad other kind of people yet to see.

What are the likely political and socio-economic impacts of the demographic changes we see in the world today?

Demographic changes refers to the changes in the characteristics of a human population or part of it, especially its size, growth, density, distribution, and statistics regarding birth, marriage, disease, and death.

Demographic changes have resulted in unprecedented changes in the world today and will continue to cause changes in world’s politics, economies and societies. Changes in population is already affecting many countries now. Two of these countries include Singapore and Japan. Japan is currently the "oldest" country in the world. In 1950, it was one of the "youngest" countries in the world; it had a median age of 22. Now its median age is 41, and by 2025 it will be approaching 50. What's happened in Japan is a combination of low immigration and birthrates that are more than one third below the "replacement level"—that is, the number of births a society needs to have enough children to replace the people who die.

As a consequence, there are fewer and fewer children as a percentage of the total population, and the median age rises. And, of course, the senior population in Japan is also soaring, because the Japanese enjoy the highest life expectancy in the world.

These countries have to implement various policies to facilitate the rising ageing population prevalent in them. These is also the prospect of smaller numbers of taxpayers facing a burden of supporting greater numbers of dependants which has led many to question the future of tax-funded welfare in general and healthcare in particular, although the dependency ratio may also be affected by changing attitudes to work, education and training.

The proportion of women in the workforce is predicted to increased, and this may indicate that the trend towards later births will continue. Delaying pregnancy can lead to greater complications, suggesting a need for more complex and specialist maternity medical and obstetric services.

It is estimated that we are adding 74 million people every year into the world. It's not a trivial addition to world population, particularly at a time when cropland is becoming so scarce and water shortages are now cropping up. Not only is almost all the projected population growth going to be in the developing world, but the vast majority of the nearly three billion people to be added by 2050 will come in countries where water tables are already falling and wells are going dry. That's not a recipe for economic progress and political stability.

Aging will tremendously affect a country’s economic growth as there will be an increasingly smaller pool of able, fit and talented people ready for the bustling world experience. Older people aren't as innovative, technically savvy, or willing to take risks as younger people. So we could have shrinking economies with shrinking numbers of workers and consumers, and an older, less innovative, less well-educated workforce. All of these factors could combine to create tremendous economic adversity.

For example, A nation's economic output, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is the number of workers times the average income per worker. With a labour force shrinkage of about 1 percent a year, Japan could see long recessions lasting a decade or more.

Almost all of Eastern European nations are also facing shrinking population and there a possibility of seeing the decline of Europe and Japan as economic and political powers. They will become cauldrons of permanent economic and fiscal crisis. Anybody who's looked at the news over the past year knows that it's been a period of constant pension reform in these countries. We have entered what is going to be a constant cycle now, a constant drumbeat of reforms.

Reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/voic-brow.html

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0609.pdf

Could the trade of weapons ever be justified?

It is very intriguing to see countries which are claiming to fight for peace trading weapons with other countries and stockpiling its weapons in preparation for war. Weapons are a cause of mass destruction of lives and property in the world today and yet countries trade these easily proliferated equipments. Basically such thirst for weapons and power is due to the obsession of countries to be well defended. As such the demand for such weapons kicks off its trade among countries. At first thought, especially to those who consider warring unreasonable and unjustifiable, trading of weapons may seem unjustifiable. Although there is enough ground to hold on to such an ideal, there are also various reasons under which the trade in weapons can be justified.

Countries with similar ideologies form alliances. This has been practiced since ancient history. It is also evident from our recent history in which the NATO countries formed alliances to counter the Warsaw pact countries and vice versa.
Countries in alliances usually have agreements to sell weapons to each other or to develop certain weapons for their defense. This is justifiable as it would ensure that one country is not too powerful while the other is too weak. Countries in such alliances are duty bound to help each other and thus the trade of weapons becomes justifiable here.

Some countries seeming to be quiet and reserved may suddenly start to pile up its weapons due to its overly ambitious politicians. Such countries may have state of the art technology to produce new and more powerful weapons. While it creates a sense of security to the countries involved in this, it gives a great deal of insecurity to neighbouring countries especially to those weaker and poorer ones. This is especially the case when one country tries to become dominant in its part of the world. As a result countries known to be in good terms may fall out on each other. How can these weaker countries then protect themselves without purchasing weapons?

It becomes a responsibility of other powerful nations to help out this weaker country in protecting itself from being invaded. These powerful nations may channel some of their weapons to the country in need. This act then becomes justifiable as the trade of weapons here occurs in response to a possible threat of invasion. Great caution must be exercised during this because history too has seen the sudden change in behaviour of countries which have seeked help. An example would be when the timid Iraq became aggressive itself. Fearing Iran’s aggressiveness, the US and it allies armed Iraq to balance Iran. In fact, Iran and Iraq have fought a war. In the end, Iran ceased to be a threat while Iraq became a rogue. Without the slightest provocation it set out to annex Kuwait and an expensive war had to be fought with loss of lives and property to all countries involved.

Another justification for the trade of weapons seems to be when people are fighting against a tyrannical regime. Sometimes governments become oppressors of people instead of their guardians. In such situations people are mercilessly mowed down by people of the government with powerful weapons. Selling of weapons to these victims becomes justifiable so that these people can defend and protect themselves.

It must also be noted that when America sold arms to Taliban in Afghanistan in the their fight against their communist government, it resulted in the take over of the country by Taliban who were more aggressive than their previous communist government. Moreover, Taliban firmly supported international terrorism directed towards US. The end result saw the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and more bloodshed as a result.

It is clearly evident that the trade of weapons is justifiable among Allies and between countries when trying to arm a country whose neighbour is building up stockpiles of weapons and when supporting rebels against an oppressive regime. However it is very crucial to consider the consequences of such trades before a country goes on to be involved in trading weapons for this has resulted in the unexpected bloodshed of people.

Slavery fashion

Change is the only thing that does not change in nature. Change is always present in our lives. We change mostly to suit ourselves with the society. This can be seen vividly from how people change themselves to adhere to latest fashions because society follows it. To be part of the fashion ‘pack’, they change their dressings, looks, habits and even moral values. Fashion is not something to be contained because it is like a wildfire which spreads rapidly from the place of origin to the rest of the world through communication modes like internet and telephone and media. As a result we can see the influence of western fashion in our countries among our people.

Mostly teenagers or the youth are the most impressionable people. They are the ones who almost always keep up with trends. For them it is not a matter so much that they are accepted by the society by large but they want to be recognized by their peers. There is a form of restlessness within youth to be with pace with latest trends and changes and to break away from their parent’s and their generation’s influences. It is this restlessness that carries them away to form groups so as to gain acceptance by their peers. While most of the time the influence of fashion brings no harm, it could be otherwise at times.

Usually, there is the existence of a group leader to guide the group into activities. When this leader, without considering the consequences, misleads the members into activities like vandalizing public properties in the name of fashion for that age, the repercussions could be severe with apprehension and punishment by the law which could ruin one’s future.

We can clearly see how youth are slaves to fashion and how they easily fall as preys to danger arising from fashion. Yet, we can see this continue generations after generations. While there is nothing wrong in keeping up with latest trends is if it does good than harm, there is a need to curb the influence of fashion. In some very regimented societies, youth are controlled by tenets of customs and religion. Force is used to ensure that the rules are obeyed and any breaching of the rules results in punishments. This can work at times but it results in the loss of the good that could come from the force and the also the loss of the energy which drives these young people.

Youth is like a rebellious passing cloud. Before you know it, it is all passed and gone. There is actually no need to curb the energy in youth by punishing them. Rather this energy could be channeled elsewhere in doing social work or working. Parents too could build up a bond of trust with their children before the rebellious age. In fact, in some psychological point of view, it’s actually the outcry of youth to be understood, recognized and loved which is shown through their outward expression of adherence to fashion.

Commentary: The death sentence can never be justified on either moral or practical grounds. How far do you agree with this?

In tackling this question, it is vital to have a strong stand and to provide appropriate examples to justify our stand. The explanation of key words such as death sentence should also be explained with illustration of when it is issued. This would give a rough idea to the readers of the seriousness of issuing death sentence.

The author initially states that death sentence is justifiable on a practical basis but later on she says it is not justifiable. Although it seems contradicting, it shows how death sentence can and cannot be justified on a practical basis under various circumstances. Thus the issue of implementing death sentence is analysed well with examples. On dealing with what is meant by “justified” it is important to quote some issues to illustrate during when it can be justified and/or otherwise. For example, the death sentence can be justified if it can be a successful deterrent measure. However, it must be taken into account that a person planning to murder someone can be stopped by other things such as his values and conscience other than the fear of being hanged which is instilled by the death sentence. This is can be clearly seen from the author’s argument that crime rates have fluctuated greatly with and without the ban of death sentence.

Some people consider the death penalty unfair because it lacks uniformity in its implementation as said by the author. For example, killing someone may result in hanging of the guilty in Arab countries but for the same crime the punishment maybe less severe in more liberal countries like America. Furthermore, people who want revenge may support the implementation of death penalty. They might argue that it’s an eye for an eye. So there is nothing morally wrong in issuing death sentence. Like the author, it can be rebutted that we have no right to kill anyone let alone do it in the name of Law and that we have to respect basic human rights and respect life. This also depends on the type of crime and the criminal in concern. For example, if it is a hard core criminal who refuses to change and continues on with his atrocious behavior, then there is no point in letting him loose again by imprisoning him months or years. It is better to hang him to ensure the safety of others. Furthermore, if such hard core criminals are not punished severely it would just encourage low rated criminals to continue committing crimes.

I cannot agree that death penalty is justified on practical basis because it does not result in the society seeing lesser crime rates as argued by the author. This is because more than 80% of the countries have banned capital punishment like death penalty because it seems not to be working. Even in countries like Iraq where death sentence was re-implemented again, the crime rates have been increasing rather than diminishing clearly indicating that death sentence is NOT a successful deterrent measure.

Thus, death penalty is justified and not justified on practical and moral grounds depending on the circumstance.

Link :
http://sultanasperspectives.blogspot.com/

Social Responsibility VS Unlimited Freedom of Expression

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Singapore is more of a cosmopolitan country with people of different races and religions living
under one roof. As such, there are lots of differences in our beliefs, lifestyles, views and opinions. However we are able to appreciate the differences among us and create a single identity - Singaporean - which binds us together. Since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, there have been no local demonstrations or racial riots like the ones of the past. However, we cannot refute the fact that people in Singapore are affected by religious conflicts happening elsewhere in the world. For example, the caricatures on Prophet Mohammed caused tensions in our homeland that the prime minister had to address the issue to reemphasize that we cannot afford any racial conflicts as they are detrimental to Singapore’s growth and prosperity.

Thus we can evidently see that issues, especially sensitive ones that deal with the uniqueness among us in our religion and race, affect us directly even if they occur in another part of the world. Therefore, we cannot afford to compromise with our peace and tolerance which is likely to happen if freedom of expression is allowed in Singapore regardless of any frontiers. We can conclude that Singaporeans are tolerant people but we cannot assume that they remain tolerant even in the face of tensions among us because Singapore has not met such difficult and critical situations since its independence. We can recall the imprisonment of two guys a few months ago for their remarks made against the Muslims in their blogs.

Why were the guys arrested? Why didn’t the government close its eyes to that incident by saying its freedom of expression? Why didn’t the media publish the remarks as well since we are talking about freedom of expression without limits in here? There is just one main reason for this which is Singaporeans should never involve in a mass suicide attempt by starting a racial riot. For this reason, the government in Singapore has a control over our freedom of expressions. If our words and actions are going to be national threats, we cannot expect the government to give us a green signal to carry on with our actions. Especially in our society, no matter how thickly bonded we might be, if a remark insults any group of people among us, its going to create troubles for our nation as a whole. Thus Singaporeans should adopt freedom of expression keeping in their minds their limits and the consequences of their actions. This is where social responsibility comes in.

Singaporeans should have social responsibility. They should not hold illegal discussions or make offending remarks publicly about any race or religion or about anyone for that matter. What I mean here by publicly is through the media. Media should also hold social responsibility in the sense that it should hold high-quality discussions with due respect for everyone. It should never take freedom of expression into its hands like the Danish paper which continued to publish the cartoons on Prophet Mohammed insisting that its publication was justified under freedom of speech principles without considering the consequences of its actions which aggravated the conflicts between Muslims and people of other races. Thus Singapore should adopt social responsibility in lieu of unlimited freedom of expression in order to maintain the progress of the nation.

Reference:Article entitled 'Free speech, Muhammad and the Holocaust' by Peter Singer

www.project-syndicate.org

Zsofia Szilagyi International Herald Tribune
Article entitled :Publishing those cartoons was a mistake
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

Most of the time, someone is punished for their mistakes so that they would learn from them and not repeat them again. Punishments are given in various forms with varying degree of intensity in the world today. For example, in Arab countries, a small theft results in the immediate amputation of the thief’s hand as punishment while in countries like Africa, the punishment is given based on the believe that the thief will be burned when he puts his hand into a pot of boiling oil while the innocent would not be. Even if there are no standard punishments across the world for crimes, law and order is still maintained because the punishments seem to be working. Thus I agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.

Punishments for the same crime are different in different countries because they are given according to how people of that nation would react to them. If people accept the public amputation of body parts as a form of punishment, it goes to say that they believe is the right form of punishment. Punishments exist to instill fear in future offenders so that they would not do it. Thus, any kind of punishment, regardless of its intensity is justified as long as it works - instills fear and prevents future crimes.

Some people might argue it not justified. There are basically two main reasons to this. They may feel that the offender is easily let off because his of her punishment is not severe enough or the punishment is too severe and unreasonable to the extent that it is unacceptable. For example, in some countries, public humiliation is given as punishment. Under it, a convict would be jailed for a few months, has to walk in public carrying a board indicating his crime and punishment for a fixed few hours per day for up to months or even years, has to give talks to other offenders and schools and managements of his experience so that these people would not repeat his mistakes. This kind of a punishment may seem so easy to people who want revenge. Furthermore, such a punishment works on the basis of shaming the convict. It would hardly be a punishment for him when he has got no shame about it.

Some people find the punishment of dipping hands into boiling oil and deciding the criminal based on it unreasonable and severe because in such punishments, not only the offender is punished but the innocent too is inflicted with pain as he too would have to dip his hand into the oil. Furthermore, such a punishment is given based on the beliefs of people about the oil not burning the innocent.

In some other countries, the punishment is given by the public and not by the court. For example, a shooter is allowed to be punished in a similar way by members of the family affected by him or her. As a result, the shooter shuts himself home for many years and lives in constant fear of being shot to death if he steps out of his house. However, this punishment may not be justified if it promotes the nature of seeking personal revenge in the people as personal revenge would not help to maintain law and order especially when the venom of seeking revenge flows from one generation to another.

Whatever it is, what is set out to be achieved must be achieved at the end of the day. Thus if punishments are given to prevent crimes, they must really be successful. This is a goal to achieve at the end of the day. The process of how it is achieved may vary among countries but as long as it works it is definitely justified to use any form of punishment to maintain law and order.

Can terrorism ever be justified?

Terrorism is the act of injuring or killing others, often innocents by armed people. They usually terrorize people to correct perceived wrongs against them. The terrorists usually carry out their deeds by claiming that they are at war with authorities and since they are too weak to take on the governments, they end up showing their frustration and wrath on the public. Thus the public who are not even involved in any of the terror activities are murdered for no reason.

Terrorism has been and is being practiced by groups of people fighting for various reasons. In the past, it was practiced by communist insurgents who wanted the fall of democracy and the implementation of communism in countries. Even in Singapore, terrorist activities were high in 1950 when the local Chinese formed communist groups fighting against the democratic system installed by the British. Thus in order to bring down democracy they tried to make the government look weak and incapable so that the people would resent the government and a communist system could take its place. The communist did this by placing mines at playgrounds, setting fires in villages, exploding bombs at crowded places and assassinating prominent figures all of which resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent people and children.

Despite the death they cause, most terrorist continue with their activities because they feel justified. They feel that they have a purpose for fighting and that over time the other people would also support them. For example, there is still on going terrorist attacks by Israelis on Palestinians and vice versa. The Palestinians who were driven out by the Israelis are convinced that every Palestinian, be it a woman, man children or elderly, is an enemy to them. They feel justified to kill them in order to get their homeland back.

Another well known terrorist group is the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. They believe that they should have their own state carved out of the existing Sri Lanka. In order to achieve this, they feel justified to go to war. They carry out their terror activities on innocent villagers who do not even know what is going on. The terrorist are convinced that they are the wronged party and they are justified in doing anything to obtain their wants. In their own and their supporters’ eyes, they appear as heroes fighting for the people but the world accepts otherwise.

It is easy for anyone to justify what he or she strongly believes. In the case of the terrorists, they are convinced they have the right to kill people. Thus, the path they take to get their demands across is often unacceptable because it results in a great loss of properties and lives. Moreover by doing so, the terrorist up in a loss most of the time as the governments most likely do not give in to their demands and also people would resist them for killing innocent lives.

In all, terrorism can never be justified because no one has the right to kill anyone for any reason. Moreover the terrorists usually do not fight against organized groups like soldiers since they know they are too weak to defeat them. Thus they show their toughness on helpless people which can never be justified under any circumstances.

Reference: General paper essays by REDSPOT publishing.

Can death penalty be ever justified?

Death sentence is perhaps the most cruel form of retribution. It gives an individual no chance at all to reform and live life again. According to the Amnesty International, some 69 countries still impose death verdicts. Some of these countries are Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Singapore. About 128 countries have abolished death penalty. Thus it is obvious that the issue of death penalty is a subjective matter. However to me, death penalty can never be justified under any circumstance.

No one is perfect in this world thus every human commit mistakes. When this mistake is considered cruel and inhumane, the person maybe subjected to a death penalty issued by the court of Justice. What we must consider here is, is it not a cruel and inhumane act to kill a person in the name of law?

How many of us are aware that death penalty is issued on pregnant women and children in Iraq and on mentally ill people in the United States of America? Is it fair to punish these people so severely and refusing to give them another chance?

Death penalty denies a being of his rights and disrespects him. Death is just imposed on a person by a fellow human being without any thoughts for his family and friends. No human in this world has the right to control and suppress anyone for any reason because every individual has basic human rights reserved for him or her. Death penalty is the extreme form of suppression and an absolute denial of human rights to the convict. As an Archbishop once said “The abolition of the death penalty is making us a civilized society. It shows we actually do mean business when we say we have reverence for life."

Supporters of death penalty would argue that death penalty would instill fear of death in a person which would in turn stop him from committing any grave mistakes. Thus, death penalty in a way acts as a form of deterrence. However in Iraq, where death sentences have been given increasingly for the past two years, the extent of violence has increased rather than diminished, clearly indicating that the death penalty has not proved to be an effective deterrent.

Such countries still continue with death penalties to just get people who are considered to be unchangeable out of this world forever. This is just running away from reality.

By just killing people easily we are just putting a bad front to them. Moreover, in the past the issue of death used to be so scary and sympathizing. Now, life is not even respected.

People have become stone hearted that killing a life is no longer an issue of concern. When such kind of attitude prevails in people, it is illogical to expect them to not harm others.

Sometimes verdicts can be issued wrongly. Due to circumstances, a person might have been viewed as the criminal and thus when he is given a death penalty wrongly, it results in the atrocious death of an innocent. We are talking about LIFE here. Is it possible to regain it back once its gone? Can it ever be compensated when a life has been forgone wrongly? It can never be compensated with anything because life is priceless.

No matter what the reason might be, it is uncivilized and wrong to kill a person in the name of Law. Thus death penalty is unjustifiable.

Reference:http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE140142007&lang=e

Homosexuals, People like us.

The world has myriad types of people with different lifestyles, practices, customs and traditions. While we have learnt to accept them, we have not totally accepted a certain group of people yet. Homosexuals refer to couples of the same sex who have sexual desires towards each other. Homosexuals are still ostracized by most people because they are believed to go against the norm. Some people shun them away saying they are hedonistic and loose people with no family and children to take care of. It might be true that homosexuals do not have their own child, but some homosexuals in US adopt children thus having their own family to take care of. Homosexuals with no families contribute their valuable time in doing community services and helping the people in need which is something many heterosexuals fail to do. Moreover, not all homosexuals are loose and hedonistic. There are some who hold important job positions and responsibilities, contributing to the economy. Infact, it’s the heterosexuals who indulge in sexual behaviour publicly most of the time.

Homosexuals are normal people like everyone just with a different look to their sexual needs. They need not be chased away and driven to the margins of the society because of this. Criminalising the act of homosexuality exactly does this. It is a fact that HIV is prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals, criminalizing will not help the situation because “normal” people might be homosexuals behind closed doors too. The issue of health should be rather educated in them to improve the situation.

Some people might argue that decriminalizing the act of homosexuality will lead to more promiscuous behaviours in public and also gives gays and lesbians groups and lobbies a platform from which they can promote and champion their cause which could be harmful to the society. They might also become overt and push for further societal approval for their activities. This might be true but homosexuals are too much oppressed by the public and this will only make situations worse.

By accepting them, most likely, they will be more encouraged to conform to common social values, such as responsible sexual behaviour, as well as play a part in contributing to civic life. Thus there is no need to be fearful of them being harmful society. There is currently the Section 377 to send the signal that homosexuality is still unacceptable. If decriminalizing is seen more harmful then just let homosexuals be homosexuals. It is choice of lifestyle so let it be so and let them continue at the privacy of their homes without interfering with the laws.

Reference: ST forum page dated 3 May.

Sectarian Wars - Sunnis Vs Shi’ites

Sectarian wars refers to armed conflicts between groups of people of the same religion with some beliefs and practices which separates them. Sectarian wars are quite common on a small scale but one war is taking over the Middle East and poses a danger to American peace and its government-stabilization efforts in Iraq. The sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shi’tes, both Islamic sects, dates back to A.D. 632. It has been continuing on and off till now and is now spreading like a venom throughout the Muslim countries. What cause are these people fighting for?

Lets take a peep look at the insights of this conflict.

Islam’s schism bagan in A.D. 632, immediately after the Prophet Mohammad died without naming a successor as leader of the new Muslim flock. Some of his followers believed the caliph should be passed down Mohammed’s bloodline, starting with his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the majority backed the Prophet’s friend Abu Bakr, who duly became Caliph. When Ali was murdered in A.D 661 and his succession of becoming the fourth Caliph was disrupted, the group formally split. Majority backed the claim of Mu’awiyah, Governor of Syria, and his son and were known as Sunnis. Ali’s supporters were eventually be known as Shi’ites . They agitated for Ali’s Son Hussein to be the caliph and he too was murdered when the two sides met on a battlefield near modern Karbala on Oct.10,680. The death of Hussein led shi’ites into believing that they were oppressed by the Sunnis. Since the Caliph was often the political head of the Islamic empire as well as its religious leader, imperial patronage helped make Sunni Islam the dominant sect. Thus the Shi’ites experienced political, social and economical inequality often reinforced by bloodshed till the fall of Saddam. Iraq’s first post-saddam election in January 2005 led to the Sunnis boycotting the poll and this allowed the Shi’tes to be swept into power. Some shi’ites avenged old grudges against Sunnis and Sunnis in their part hold bombing campaigns confirming their disapproval of their reduced status.

Although the concurrent battles between them seems nothing to the people there, the world tends to focus on the bigger picture. Shi’ites are now politically dominant in Iraq and Iran is the leading Shi’ite power. So most of the Arab countries blame Iran for the Sectarian war and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of shi’ite hizballah militia in Lebonon and its meddling with Iraq proves to the Arab nations that their old Persian (Shi’ites) rivals are determined to reshape the Middle East to suit their interest.

While Iraqis are caught up in their own battles, their children are carrying the hatred forward to the next generation. More and more differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites is poisoning the minds of the young. This is frightening and might be a possible cause for upcoming civil wars between Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq where almost every household has a AK-47.

The Sunnis and Shi’ites must reconcile before things really get out of hand. Any kind of peace programmes by the US will be unsuccessful in the long run as the minds of the people in Iraq is poisoned for seeking revenge. The interference of US militants has currently stopped the fights as the Shi’its know their troops are not prepared to handle American troops. But how long will this ‘peace’ last? Afterall, American troops will have to leave one day and that day will mark the start of another Civil war. Tensions and conflicts will continue to batter Iraq up if these people do not foresee the future.

Reference: TIME, March 12 2007 article on the Sunnis and Shi’ites.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Criminals and terrorists are punished in various forms under the court of Law. They could be given death penalty, put in rehabilitation centres, or asked to do corrective work orders depending on the extent of their crimes and charges. Why would they be punished likewise? Other than the death penalty, the other kinds of punishments are deterrent techniques to stop crimes. All these are legal but something - torture- which acts as the fundamental key in proving it successful is being debated over today. Whatever the kind of punishment it is, it certainly involves torture to a certain extent. How can it be called a punishment when it is being enjoyed by the accused? Torture could be in forms like emotional torture, physical torture and mental torture. Usually when the accused are jailed up, they start to undergo emotional and mental torture which is imposed on them by the new adverse conditions they are open to in the prisons. Example would be in Singapore prisons where the accused undergoes strict disciplinary trainings which requires great deal of mental strength. Eg . marching under the hot sun. Furthermore, the prisons are not luxurious places. The prisoners usually have to adjust drastically to suit themselves in there. However this is only applicable to people who have been convicted by the court. In this case, it is not justified to torment more as they have been given a fixed period of jail term which itself is punitive.

However when we consider criminals and terrorists held captive for interrogative purposes it is justified to use torture on them to a certain extent. If the captive is suspected with evidence to be a national threat, then torture can be employed because there is proof that a great deal of pain is going to be imposed on the public by the criminal and the only way of preventing the death of hundred others is to make him confess. Although torture cannot be gaurenteed to make a criminal talk, it’s a fair try to use it on them in order to achieve a benefiting result. Example is when Zubaydah gave interrogators information that identified Binalshibh and "helped lead" to the capture of both Binalshibh and the prized K.S.M. Especially torture is justified for hardened criminals because they repeat their crimes often without caring for others.

Just a bomb blast somewhere in the world stirs emotions of fury and sadness in people all over the world. It is possible that a death of a single person affects a whole community.
Example is the deaths of political leaders.

Imagine the effect of killing thousands with a single plan employed by the criminals and terrorists. It would be devastating! People, especially the Human Rights would debate that it is outrageous to torment the criminals as they are human too. Aren’t Humans supposed to be rational, sensitive and sensible people who do not dig their own graves by their actions? How can criminals who kill so many people can ever be considered as human in the first place for the Human Rights to fight for them? Does having the same organs and features qualify a living thing as a human instead of a mammal?

Thus I argue that torture is justified to be used on criminals and terrorists during interrogations with evidence that they are of great threat to world peace. Torture is also justified to be used on hardened criminals. However, it should not be employed for every single interrogation as torture is not successful all the time. Moreover, the interrogators should use other more successful ways such talking to the criminals or trying to brainwash them into confessing rather then torturing.

References :

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533436,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Torture-acceptable-says-former-NCA-chief/2005/05/22/1116700585264.html#

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

The world is beginning to be dominated by New Media - Blogging. The press of old times do not attract people as much Blogging does these days. Given the opportunity and freedom to say anything one wants, ultimately a human’s instinct will tell him to fully express himself without considering the consequences of doing so. Blogging which started off small and unpopular now is done everyday and a blog is created every second, adding to the 37 million that already exist. This shows exactly how blogging has reached the mass of people and how much it is demanded by the people. While blogging is definitely relaxing and confidence boosting when one gets to meet thousands of other people facing the same kind of situations as him or herself, It can be of great threat to the stability of a nation if blogging gets out of hand. If blogging gets into the hands of the wrong groups of people , terrorists for example, they could use this as a medium to spread terrorist believes and manipulate the minds of people especially the minds of the Muslims. This is exactly what is happening in the world now.

Terrorists spread their extremist ideas through blogs to gain support from people who get indoctrinated by their claims easily. They also use it to communicate between various terrorist groups in order to carry out their deadly missions successfully. The most amazing part of this is that they can carry out plans easily with what little technology they have and countries with high- tech gadgets cannot even locate them. However, be mindful that it’s the normal and sane people who are capable of being terrorists. Even the public could be considered as terrorists if they bring about disagreements and hostility in people which would threaten world peace. Its usually the controversial incidents that happen in the world that causes people to create more and more blogs in order to express themselves. Examples of events which stirred the feelings of the people are the September 11 attack at the World Trade Centre and the release of blasphemous cartoon caricatures of Prophet Mohamed . This let to the increase in the number blogs world wide. Since people do comment harshly and bad mouth even the government in their blogs, its crucial their blogs are censored in order to prevent anti- government feelings in the people. This would prevent demonstrations and riots from happening in the world.

For example, Singapore government has allowed freedom of speech to be established in its citizens’ blogs, however it arrested two citizens recently for uploading comments which were capable of creating anti-multiracial feelings in the people. In Iran, locking up bloggers remains a favorite practice. In January, Arash Sigarchi received a three-year prison sentence for 'insulting the Supreme Guide' and for 'propaganda against the regime.

Blogging is just a medium for individuals to express their feelings. When a government of a country prohibits public rallying against the government, shouldn’t it not allow blogging since it is now being used to communicate ill ideas which are sometimes detrimental to a country’s stability? Blogging is definitely a power to people which can be misused by them too. On the positive side,blogging grows critical thinking and analyzing skills in people and informs the government of the opinions of its people and what they think thus allowing more interactions between them. However, if the same blog brings about differences and enmity among people, it should be censored. Thus I would say that blogging is a power to the people that could be misused by them to cause instability in a region.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

The media can certainly be relied upon to convey a truth. Truth as in not a genuine truth but a fabricated truth. Why do I say so? Media is a transporter of news and events to the masses so that the people know what is happening around them. It is just like any other professions but should be a more truthful one as it has to report what it sees. However things are not like what it should be because to a certain extent media is controlled by external forces and internal greeds as explicitly shown in the article. Sometimes media has to cover up the seriousness of the truth, as in the event of the Iraqi war being an unnecessary invasion fueled by corporate-controlled news media’s lust to boost profits, and present things in a nonchalant manner. This is to avoid criticism of the media so that it does not loose its viewers and remains popular. Its more safer for the media to go with government than to go against it as in the case of McCarthy’s “Great Lie Theory” which was disemminated to the public by the media too.

Sometimes there maybe “deals” between the media and some powerful forces so that the media gains a profit .An example would be when Powell’s son Michael changed F.C.C rules so that the media empires could acquire even a greater share of the marketplace. In return all these empires had to do was endorse, the warmongering lies of the Bush dictatorship, and accept, or at least not question, the fraudulent results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential “elections.” This illustrates that the media can be bribed!

Sometimes media is prejudice against some people. After all, it’s the ordinary people who control news publications and they do edit news to their own gain so much that in the end the news becomes a tripe of dishonesty and fabrications, with a few seconds of condensed truth. The author’s experience ,as stated in the article when he was asked to contact the proper investigative agency regarding the issue that local community people were being unjustly purged from voter registration rolls, confirms that the media gives a overall false and dishonest product for the sake of earning profits. Moreover at times, media is influenced by relations as in the case when the author’s article was rejected because it could be construed as an attack on the professionalism of the local police department. Later the author found out that the editor who had reviewed his article and the police officer who had belatedly espoused her “doubts” were friends, and this was the real motive behind the censorship.

As such when media is being influenced by many factors like Prejudice, Profits and Popularity, how can it be relied upon to convey the truth? Of course people can argue that there are television programmes like Comedy Central’s satirical program “The Daily Show,” for example, often covers current events with more insight than the so-called cable “news” networks, where “discussion” routinely consists of “experts” of dubious qualifications shouting and interrupting each other.

However, just because there is one or two reliable and truthful programmes, we cannot conclude that the media is reliable because media is a huge banyan tree with so many branches. Even if television programmes “show” the “truth”, how about “split-screen” interviews cases where the respondent has no visual contact with the questioner, relying instead on an earpiece that simply transmits sound. As a result, the questioner can smirk, frown, scowl, or employ numerous other forms of non-verbal communication to indicate approval or derision, all without the respondent’s knowledge. There you can see from here this is a way employed by media to convey their biases.

Media adapts to different situations. For example, during the controversy between Italian football player and Zidane at the world cup, the media never failed to report it all clear and transparent because the event was witnessed by thousands of people. Moreover by reporting such a “hot” news as it was, it was able to increase its popularity!

Media can be trusted to report the happenings around the world but if one were to analyze the truth in it, it might be discovered that there are some fabrications. Thus if one wants the truth, one should search for it alone.

Reference:

Great Lies of the American Free Press

David R. Hoffman, Pravda (leftist, online), Moscow, Russia, May 23, 2005

Man of the Century

I would say the man of the century to me is Walt Disney. He has certainly created a dramatic shift in human Entertainment. He created Mickey Mouse and produced the first full-length animated movie. He invented the theme park and originated the modern multimedia corporation. For better or worse, his innovations have shaped our world and the way we experience it. And most notably, he is a nominee for 48 Academy Awards and 7 Emmys and also holds the most record for Oscar nominations. That shows how much he has contributed to motion-pictures and to peoples’ enjoyments of television programmes and how his programmes were received by the masses. At a time when parents were looking for programmes that were safe for their children, Walt’s motion pictures provided a good source of entertainment, never crossing the boundary. What about him that impresses me the most is that he was a twenty-two time Academy Award winning American film producer, screenwriter, director, voice actor, animator, entrepreneur, visionary and philanthropist.His name is a household word among people who have little or no knowledge of American film. It is even familiar to children. He had earned a good name for himself in the face of huge challenges and hurdles. Being born in a poor family and having a feckless father who turned into sour failures amidst few success, Walt was determined to escape from his father’s poor state of life and to strive for success. Reduced to living in his studio and eating cold beans out of a can, Disney endured the hard times any worthwhile success story demands. Disney was the first to add a music and effects track to a cartoon, and that, coupled with anarchically inventive animation, wowed audiences, especially in the early days of sound, when live-action films were hobbled to immobile microphones. He was also a great risk taker when he risked everything for his production ‘Snow white and the seven Drawfs ’ and it won him so much of accolades. Although he was a poor animator, he proved to be a first-class gag man and story editor. Even in the face of critics who hectored him, he proved to be a fascinator. I admire him most for his contributions to making people’s world happier and enjoyable. It is not an easy task to make someone feel happy. Walt has done beyond that and had been an extraordinary man in the field of Entertainment.

Sources :http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/disney3.html
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney

Global Warming

G-L-O-B-A-L w-a-r-m-i-n-g. Recall the technical term? This is the latest term that appears atleast once a month in our newspapers nowadays. It’s a fact that just two decades ago people do not even know what is Global Warming and now you have people all around the world, even in developing countries, concerned over this issue. It is really phenomenal that this kind of change can happen. Lets look at who are our major contributors of Global Warming. USA gets the gold award for being the largest producer of greenhouse gases all in the name of industrialization . China is just behind and is catching up fast with USA. While these countries and many more are contributing to global warming at one side, on the other side, we have crazy ideas from scientists to reduce global warming. This is certainly a sign of their fears over this issue. How crazy could their ideas get? Lets take a look. First suggestion is to dump tons of iron dust into the ocean. The iron dust would grow planktons which will absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Although this sounds innovative and interesting but it has aroused a caution about the ecological consequences of large-scale fertilisation of the ocean. Second one is to use jet engines which would shoot tons of sulphates into the air. Next suggestion is to build a ‘sun shade’ in the space using Frisbee-like spaceships that go between the Earth and the Sun, and act as an umbrella to reduce heat. Finally , large filters could be made to grab carbon dioxide from the air using chemical absorbers and then compressing the carbon dioxide into a liquid or compressed gas that can be shipped elsewhere. These suggestions sure do costs a lot of time, effort and expenses too. Man had affected ,and is still continuing to do for that matter, the planet negatively that now he is desperately looking for ways to reverse it. While some effects can be reversed, global warming is something that does not decline fast. It would take many years of constant efforts to stop the burgeoning global warming and it’s a doubt even if it would save the world!(358 words)

Introduction

Hey!!Thanks for visiting my Blog.My name is Syed Fathima.I prefer to be called Fathima.I am from class 14/07.
I hail from India.I came to singapore about 10 years ago to study.Basically I am just like any ordinary person with so many dreams and wishes.I used to be a very sensitive girl a few years ago but the challenges and adverse conditions I faced over the years have changed me into a sensible,mature and practical girl.I do not have an idol or role models.I respect my individuality so much so that I do not like to follow others in any way.I do admire some extrodinary people such as Mother Theresa.I love playing in the rain and hate all the creepy crawlies!!I hate the cockroaches especially..My favourite subjects are Maths,maths and maths!I love Biology too.I am very facinated by God's Creations.I have a passionate interest in running.When i get tired of studying I go for a run to get refreshed.Well my ambition is to start a charitable organisation for the poor in Nepal first and in other parts of the world too.Ultimately I want to contribute as much as I can to deplete poverty from this world.My personal motto is 'Never let victories to get into our brains and failures to get into our hearts'.I hope I will be able to whet my interests and hone my talents at AJC!