Week 8 Blog prompt- Repeat of MRT vandalism

I was surprised to see this. Currently the only details are that a train at Bishan depot where upgrading works were scheduled was found vandalised, only one year after the previous one at Changi depot.

But this will get commuters worried. With vandals able to spring surprises on us, what happens when one day the vandal is a terrorist? Surely SMRT cannot say they did not have enough time or resources to beef up security because it was one year between both incidents.

I think such a problem happens when a private company runs a public service. Maybe the management didn't think it necessary to step up measures.

This matter extends beyond security. These vandals do not understand why it is so incomprehensibly wrong to spoil public property. Firstly, it belongs to the state for everyone to use. When you spoil it, you are taking away the government's money, which is stealing, and you are depriving the public of use of the train, which is hoarding, selfishness. And there are more creative ways of art.

The government should get down really hard on these kinds of people. And it should also put it in the newspaper and shame the vandal and warn the public not to do it. Because all this will make any curious parties think twice.

Week 6 Blog Prompt- The media’s unhealthy culture

“The media should be blamed for its unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extreme for sensational news, how far do you agree?”

I agree mostly. Of course I have read sensational news; on Yahoo, MSN, the search engine's start page always has news with catchy titles. About sex, money, beauty, common attention-pullers.

The media, as described by Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh, is "judge, jury and prosecution". I think that means the media likes to find stories and judge the celebrity in question based on the story. Journalists are good at manipulating words. And at first exaggeration and such made the people want to read more. But they did not mind because celebs are high-profile people and royals are important people, and people high on the social strata are known to have little privacy.

The thing about the news media is that everyone can sell the same story, but how many can make it delicious? Take for example the phone-hacking scandal from the News of the World, the British public have shown their disgust over the stories of the murdered girl or dead soldiers. But before NotW got busted, Britons were still reading their paper. How could you mask the moral scent of such a filthy act? Through the power to give the public their articles with your say as final. And authoritative.

I think in Singapore our media is honest enough, although being government controlled, enough is debatable. But in other countries like Britain, independent press has caused this unhealthy culture.

But the public has to be blamed too. This massive invasion of privacy is also caused by photojournalists, or citizens with a camera phone. For example, STOMP, Singapore's gossip portal has its articles in the "Singapore Seen" section collated from pictures taken by the public. Its that kind of kiasuness, or want of censorship, when everyone wants that kick from an exposé . The media is more like the headquarters.

On its own, without demand from readers, the news media would not have such underhanded means to create supply. So the public is fueling the sins of the media.

Week 5 Blog prompt -By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved?

At the end of the trial in Merchant of Venice justice and mercy were achieved, although the genuineness of those achievements are arguable. These must be considered from the points of view of Shylock, the law and the Christians.

Justice may be defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable. When a mother punishes her child for doing something wrong, she is being just. It is reasonable and well within the scope of her duty as a mother to discipline her child, and a punishment is fair.

Mercy may be defined as compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm. When a judge decides not to impart life imprisonment out of compassion, he is showing mercy. I am not saying that it may always be the best choice to make, but it is all about compassion and forgiveness.

So why has justice been achieved? Was it true justice? Shylock was punished for his misdeed, although it was Portia who manipulated the law to make him look wrong, and not because he had borne evil intentions. Certainly in the law justice has been achieved. But Shylock had sealed the bond legally and in the end had not laid a finger on Antonio. Did he truly deserve to be punished like this? Although he was offered three chances to grant mercy and show his kingly virtue, he refused. Perhaps he does deserve to be punished, but not in the way he was. So true justice was not achieved. Antonio had some responsibility for taking the bond too. But no punishment was given to him in the end.

But mercy... the Duke spared his life and Antonio did not take half of Shylock's wealth for himself. By sparing him of worst things, they showed mercy to him. However, they did not show him it out of pure compassion. It was more like not letting him have a quick death. They probably wanted him to have a slow painful life. Also Antonio used this opportunity to make Shylock renounce Jewism. Technically mercy was shown, but in terms of compassion and forgiveness we can see this kind of mercy is not born from morals. It is more of a kind of masking revenge with virtue. This is not exactly true mercy.

Then again, what is true? How can we ever judge what is true mercy? If everyone thought Shylock should die, is that justice true? Is trueness based on morals or law?

Thus I conclude that the justice and mercy portrayed in the trial scene is perverted. But having said that, we do not have a measure to check how true something is. Thus, it can only be left to oneself to make that conclusion.

In real life, Anti-Corruption Commission investigations manager, Sukai Tongogara, confirmed to The Zimbabwean this week that the commission had received complaints against some individuals at all levels of the judicial system. Magistrates, prosecutors, clerks of court, legal practitioners, officers of the Labour Court, traditional chiefs and judges are all involved. We can see how perverted justice is.

Week 4 blog post

http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
I am Timothy Leong, a secondary student of Hwa Chong Institution. I fully agree with the student, Janelle, who wrote this article. I have always been of the opinion that the education system has degraded me. It has given me knowledge and made me a robot. And that these flaws have manifested themselves in various forms of behaviours we never expected to see.
“I study because I can get good results.” In Singapore, our education teaches us to be paper smart. Whenever we receive instruction or are told to do something, we tackle it effectively and without complain. We work tirelessly. But on graduation day, when we have gained autonomy over our lives, we are left blank as to what our heart wants to do. We have only paid attention to our academic interests. School teaches us how to solve problems and think critically, but it did not teach us how to appreciate our job, how to make decisions for our life. And our A level certificate merely says we have done well at Math, English, Science, but not that we have become independent thinkers.
Also, my school environment is highly stressful. Every day I face multiple deadlines. Teachers give us assignments to do. We have to study very hard for our tests. And because our grades potentially affect our career choices, we focus all on grades. Classmates will study and keep their notes to themselves. They will not do a project with you because you are not apt in a subject. And when I get good grades for a test, I do not get recognised for hard work. I am taught that “I wanted the A1 in the first place, so I worked hard. Getting what you worked for is nothing to be proud of. Not like you got it out of luck.” It is not that my friends are bastards, but for their own sake, everyone becomes selfish.
I am not happy always trying to please my teachers. In Hwa Chong, you do what you are told to. Otherwise, you are kicked out, because you are not a capable person, and society cannot rely on you. That is twisted! In life, if you are doing something you do not have interest for, you get out of there and continue finding your passion, otherwise you will spend your time meaninglessly. I hate having to keep trying to patch up my weaknesses. English is my passion, but I have little time for it. On Saturdays, I have to study for Chinese tuition because my Chinese is weak. I have to go for remedials because I am weak. In the end, I do not develop my strength, I am not weak in any area; I am but a mediocre student like the rest.
In our capitalist society, education is the way to get you employed. Therefore, it is idealistic to factor in our interests only. True, but if we spend the present living for the future, then the present is wasted. Then there will be no future. Have we all become lacklustre? Chasing prestige?
Because we have not been made to think creatively, we lose our personality. We lose our uniqueness. We are another Singaporean only. We are uninteresting, and our goals are to secure a good job and earn money to live a materially comfortable life. However, because of that if someone pushes their way through the system to get a degree, he may not have a job even, because too many people have the same qualifications as him. Is he in any way worse off than someone who has gotten the job? Not necessary. And besides, even if we have good grades, it does not mean we will have a job. Having good grades will be a prerequisite of any office job, but its more of other qualities like our personality, our character, what we have done in our school life that employees matter. Even though we had a sharing during assembly that says our school has all the programmes to give us the skill set for the 21st century, programmes don’t nurture people. They merely transfer knowledge. Only receiving knowledge makes one a robot. Learning and applying it makes one a skilled human. It takes a teacher to nurture a student.
I also agree that character development is very superficially and artificially taught. We have Chinese values, but with so much worry on our mind do we actually care to help anybody? A good character is shown when someone clears his plate, moves so that someone else can sit on the bench to eat also, when at the bus stop gives up his seat to someone else, not when he answers questions during moral values lessons. Can such a rigid system determine good character? Look at thinking class. We have an AAT class to teach us techniques of thinking. But is that really how to make us think better? We all end up thinking the same way. Because that was how we were taught. But they should teach us the attitudes of thinking, how we should view thinking. These kinds of things like character and thinking cannot be properly taught in a lesson system.
The education system should focus on developing our strengths. It should allow us to change easily. To switch a course when we realise we don’t want it. Would Michael Jackson have been able to start singing from a young age if he had to spend his time on homework? We are all born for a reason. We have to find that reason. We are all born with different gifts. We have to find those too. We aren’t all from the same ang ku kueh factory.
Lastly, having said that, Singapore has a very good environment to live in. It is safe, the government provides for us. But certainly there are many improvements the education system needs to see.

I feel that Janelle has used the correct tone. If she had tried to be polite and tone down her words, she is going against her point about speaking freely by trying not to offend the minister. Also, she has made points and backed them up with explanations and examples. There is thought put into it. If I want to send a letter to a minister, I will raise those points aforementioned.

Week 3 Blog prompt- Money in a relationship

Yes. I feel that money is very important. The reason is, for a relationship to work, the couple actually has to work out problems in the relationship. Money is always a big problem. Buying a house, a car, raising children, all need money and sacrifice from the couple. If a couple cannot fend for themselves financially, it is actually very hard for them to be together. Whilst people say only true love is needed, I think that is very idealistic. For example, Portia could make Bassanio comfortably wealthy. He may or may not truly love her, but their relationship will work. Money allows for greater tolerance. This year, the Straits Times published an article about couples and their financial preferences. It reported that couples no longer see the need to have only a joint account. A couple even said each of them have their own account and they manage their own finances. We can see that couples view financial independence highly also. Their money is as important as their love. As the cost of living in Singapore rises, this issue of money would only get more important. I see an upward trend of relationships and marriages valuing money over other qualities. That is why wives fight over their husband’s inheritance when he dies.

Week 2 Blog Prompt

In your opinion, how has war evolved from from the past to present? Please use examples to justify your opinions.

I feel there are three areas:

1.Warring groups
2.Purpose
3.Communication

Firstly, in the past, war was carried out on a large scale. War was only started by people who had heavy resources and power, like the large countries like Britain, Germany and France during WWI. A little down the road, terrorists with fighter jets crashed into 911. However, as seen from the recent Middle Eastern Revolutions even youths are going against their leader. War has become more of getting your thoughts across than using force to defeat somebody.

Secondly, in the past, wars were started over extreme anger or hatred. They were usually started by leaders. Serbia was blamed for the death of Austria's duke. Hitler had an aversion for jews. The al-qaeda did not like America. Dr Sun Yat Sen's revolution was born out of the extreme disappointment he had in the Qing government. They were corrupted. But, war now is less driven by emotions. When people see a need, they take on various forms of battleground; social media, television and news media, to tell the government, or the leader that he needs to step down. It is less violent, as violence does not solve problems, and people in the war use more intellectual means to gain support of the people.

Lastly, communication. Technology has advanced such that it is easier to rally support of the people. The common citizens can rally together. This poses a bigger threat to the government than weapons. Also, more global attention is received, causing the government to at with extreme caution.

Soldier poem

My reflections on The Soldier by Rupert Brooke:

The soldier regards England as his homeland. Unlike previous poems, this poem shows how fighting a war for one's beloved country is worthwhile, and dying is justified. While the soldier died in a foreign land, he feels that as long as he and his comrades reside there, that land will forever be England's. This poem is a sonnet. Sonnets are romantic, so this soldier might have written the poem to show that he has a deep connection with England, and after he dies he will no longer bear the responsibility of a soldier and will be free to be with England. Also, he envisions peace for England when he dies and after the war ends. He does not mind giving his life back to England, because England has made him what he is in the first place. He will be back with England again, purified. Under the English skies there will be peace and his death was worth is shown in "heaven at its best where he finds peace and rest, and all evil and destruction is cast off". He is a patriotic soldier. I feel that this is too idealistic, because to some extent the cruel fighting will take its toll on a soldier's health and mind. It is worthy to die for a country though.