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.