Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalization?
In the age of globalization, the world is getting more developed and advanced in all ways, making the world a much smaller place.
However, in my opinion, even when the world has undergone such drastic change over the years, there has not been a great difference in the mindset of the people. Many people still have the traditional mindset that being homosexual is an act of outrage of modesty. Furthermore, being homosexual also clashes with the traditional and regional beliefs, which explains why so many people are still discrimination against them. Articles also stated that same-sex marriage would cause social disorder as it is a violation of the standard tradition since the fabric of society has all along been held together by the institution of heterosexual marriages. An article from The Straits Times by Mrs Claire Nazar stated that it would be irresponsible of the homosexual couples to ignore the psychological risks that the children raised by them are exposed to. It was also mentioned that since homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, they would have to resort to adoptive measures or artificial reproduction which will drain the resources of the government.
It is because of these reasons that same-sex marriage is seen as an unpractical consideration in the modern age of globalization.
On the other hand, there are people who argue for the case of discrimination against the homosexuals. The article “Can mum,mum and kids make a family?” by Janadas Devan mentioned that his homosexual friend has a stable marriage and even conceived two children artificially, furthermore, the children are brought up well, without them being affected psychologically. Other articles stated that homosexuals should be entitled to their basic human rights, such as the right to marry. Furthermore, the article argued that heterosexual marriages are not always stable and long-lasting as it was not proven scientifically. The article also said that homosexual couples would value their families more than heterosexual couples due to the troubles they have to go through in order to adopt or artificially reproduce offspring. This would reduce rates of divorce, child-abuse and social dysfunction. Children rasied in the closely-knitted homosexual community would benefit positively as they would be more open-minded. All these argue that same-sex marriage is still practical in this age of globalization.
On the overall, I think that same-sex marriage is an unpractical consideration in this modern age of globalization as many people still possess the traditional mindset of homosexuals, and how it clashes with their beliefs. If same-sex marriages are accepted in this age of globalization, many people would avoid them, and hence worsening the case of homosexual discrimination. However, same-sex marriage might be possible in the near future, when the mindset of the society advances along with globalization and no longer possess their traditional way of thinking.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Class Discrimination
“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty” Do You Agree?
Revolutions are significant changes that usually occur in a relatively short period of time, which have been happening throughout human history and might result in a socio-political change in the socio-political institutions, or a major change in a culture or economy. Crime is seen as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave.
I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty. In an article by Wayne Arnold, in the International Herald Tribune, it was clearly stated that even though the average wages in Singapore were rising with the economy, the incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had fallen since 2000. This implies that the income gap between the populations of Singapore had widened. While the rich are getting richer, the poor are also getting poorer. If the poorer population starts having financial difficulties in order to survive, they might become desperate and end up resorting to crime and even forming up revolutions. Another example would be from the article by Geert De Clercq, under Yahoo! News Singapore, it states that one in three students on government scholarships came from wealthy families, which only make up 13 percent of Singapore households. Whereas, students from households of incomes less than $2,000 only make up 7 percent of scholarship winners, this further amplify the problem of income disparity, and thus resulting in the same problems as stated above.
Even though I agree to a large extent that poverty is the root of revolution and crime, there are also other causes to those. Crimes might be committed out of greed, fun or revenge, it might also be a tool for attracting attention of others, and poverty does not necessary leads to crime as even the wealthy commit crimes. Revolutions may have come about due to propaganda or formed by a group of displeased people, whom might not necessary come from families with poor backgrounds.
On the whole, I conclude that crimes and revolutions are mainly brought about due to poverty, desperation can cause people to do things against their will, all for the sake of survival. Moreover, I am sure that once the issue of income gap have been minimized or resolved, the number of crimes and revolutions will certainly decrease too.
Revolutions are significant changes that usually occur in a relatively short period of time, which have been happening throughout human history and might result in a socio-political change in the socio-political institutions, or a major change in a culture or economy. Crime is seen as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave.
I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty. In an article by Wayne Arnold, in the International Herald Tribune, it was clearly stated that even though the average wages in Singapore were rising with the economy, the incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had fallen since 2000. This implies that the income gap between the populations of Singapore had widened. While the rich are getting richer, the poor are also getting poorer. If the poorer population starts having financial difficulties in order to survive, they might become desperate and end up resorting to crime and even forming up revolutions. Another example would be from the article by Geert De Clercq, under Yahoo! News Singapore, it states that one in three students on government scholarships came from wealthy families, which only make up 13 percent of Singapore households. Whereas, students from households of incomes less than $2,000 only make up 7 percent of scholarship winners, this further amplify the problem of income disparity, and thus resulting in the same problems as stated above.
Even though I agree to a large extent that poverty is the root of revolution and crime, there are also other causes to those. Crimes might be committed out of greed, fun or revenge, it might also be a tool for attracting attention of others, and poverty does not necessary leads to crime as even the wealthy commit crimes. Revolutions may have come about due to propaganda or formed by a group of displeased people, whom might not necessary come from families with poor backgrounds.
On the whole, I conclude that crimes and revolutions are mainly brought about due to poverty, desperation can cause people to do things against their will, all for the sake of survival. Moreover, I am sure that once the issue of income gap have been minimized or resolved, the number of crimes and revolutions will certainly decrease too.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Freedom of Speech
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?
In Singapore’s multi-racial society, the people of the different races respect each others tradition, language and culture and hence they are able to befriend each other and live together in harmony. Hence, Szilagyi’s views should be adopted.
According to Singer’s views, he insists of applying the freedom of expression, even if it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other races. This directly conflicts the multi-racial society in Singapore. If this view is adopted in Singapore, many racial conflicts would certainly occur and how would the people be able to live in harmony?
As Szilagyi said, if the media wants freedom of speech to be implemented, they must have the basic responsibility of knowing of is appropriate to publish and what would offend the people. This is something which most media do not possess as they would just publish anything to boost their ratings, including materials which will offend people.
Having freedom of expression might be essential for democratic regimes, but having to offend the public in the process is not a good choice. As the offences become more serious, the people might not be able to endure it anymore and end up revolting and thus destroying peace in the country. Furthermore, freedom of speech can cause tension between countries and if a war were to break out, many innocent lives would be lost.
The freedom of speech allows anyone to speak out their opinions, be it good or bad and if it is a negative statement, it might influence others to think the same way and so people might have opinionated views on other people or countries.
Therefore, the freedom of speech should be limited, even if it should aid in the development of democratic regimes, as it could cause hostility between the people or between countries. Szilagyi’s view of instilling social responsibility is thus more appropriate for Singapore’s society.
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?
In Singapore’s multi-racial society, the people of the different races respect each others tradition, language and culture and hence they are able to befriend each other and live together in harmony. Hence, Szilagyi’s views should be adopted.
According to Singer’s views, he insists of applying the freedom of expression, even if it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other races. This directly conflicts the multi-racial society in Singapore. If this view is adopted in Singapore, many racial conflicts would certainly occur and how would the people be able to live in harmony?
As Szilagyi said, if the media wants freedom of speech to be implemented, they must have the basic responsibility of knowing of is appropriate to publish and what would offend the people. This is something which most media do not possess as they would just publish anything to boost their ratings, including materials which will offend people.
Having freedom of expression might be essential for democratic regimes, but having to offend the public in the process is not a good choice. As the offences become more serious, the people might not be able to endure it anymore and end up revolting and thus destroying peace in the country. Furthermore, freedom of speech can cause tension between countries and if a war were to break out, many innocent lives would be lost.
The freedom of speech allows anyone to speak out their opinions, be it good or bad and if it is a negative statement, it might influence others to think the same way and so people might have opinionated views on other people or countries.
Therefore, the freedom of speech should be limited, even if it should aid in the development of democratic regimes, as it could cause hostility between the people or between countries. Szilagyi’s view of instilling social responsibility is thus more appropriate for Singapore’s society.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Censorship
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship. Why is censorship necessary/unnecessary?
Censorship has its good points, such as it 'shields' the people, especially the younger
children from gory and violent sights which may harm them in one way or another, such as in the forms of nightmare. It would be necessary as such frightful sights may traumatize even the adults, which would certainly affect the children even more. There are also censorship on explicit and adult materials, if the children are exposed to such stuff, they will be influenced by it and might become curious and start exploring more on their own. It also has the most influence on the children as they spend most of their time watching/listening to the media, mainly the television.
However, censorship has its downside too, blocking off so much content on the media prevents the people from knowing more of the world outside, which is important to them, particularly the younger generation when they continue their studies in junior college and other education institutes or when they step into the working environment. It is thus unnecessary as it encloses the people in a world of their own and hence not exposing them to the outside world and how it works. If they are faced with a crisis in reality, they might not be able to react to such situation calmly or effectively as they are not sure on the efficient way of handling the problem well.
On the whole, I feel that censorship is necessary to a certain level, only the most negative influential sights should only be censored so that the people would be able to widen their knowledge about the world and thus becoming more competent in solving their problems.
Censorship has its good points, such as it 'shields' the people, especially the younger
children from gory and violent sights which may harm them in one way or another, such as in the forms of nightmare. It would be necessary as such frightful sights may traumatize even the adults, which would certainly affect the children even more. There are also censorship on explicit and adult materials, if the children are exposed to such stuff, they will be influenced by it and might become curious and start exploring more on their own. It also has the most influence on the children as they spend most of their time watching/listening to the media, mainly the television.
However, censorship has its downside too, blocking off so much content on the media prevents the people from knowing more of the world outside, which is important to them, particularly the younger generation when they continue their studies in junior college and other education institutes or when they step into the working environment. It is thus unnecessary as it encloses the people in a world of their own and hence not exposing them to the outside world and how it works. If they are faced with a crisis in reality, they might not be able to react to such situation calmly or effectively as they are not sure on the efficient way of handling the problem well.
On the whole, I feel that censorship is necessary to a certain level, only the most negative influential sights should only be censored so that the people would be able to widen their knowledge about the world and thus becoming more competent in solving their problems.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Singapore Swimmers in Hot Water
How does the media and its subjective perception affect the way this incident was handled?
The media’s subjective perception is that they treated it as if the Singaporean swimmers were laughing at the disqualification of the American swimmers. But the truth was that the Singaporean swimmers were just smiling in shock and was not at all mocking or laughing at the American swimmers. Neither did the reporters bother to interview the Singaporean swimmers and asked them what was their reason for smiling at the scoreboard, this has shown that the reporters was not at all interested in seeking the truth of the situation and was only interested of events which will improve their ratings. This caused the Singaporean swimmers to be accused of mocking at the American swimmers and the Singapore Swimming Association had to investigate the situation and find out the truth so as to prove the innocence of the Singaporean swimmers. This might also caused uneasy between the Singapore and American swimmers when they meet each other again.
The media’s subjective perception is that they treated it as if the Singaporean swimmers were laughing at the disqualification of the American swimmers. But the truth was that the Singaporean swimmers were just smiling in shock and was not at all mocking or laughing at the American swimmers. Neither did the reporters bother to interview the Singaporean swimmers and asked them what was their reason for smiling at the scoreboard, this has shown that the reporters was not at all interested in seeking the truth of the situation and was only interested of events which will improve their ratings. This caused the Singaporean swimmers to be accused of mocking at the American swimmers and the Singapore Swimming Association had to investigate the situation and find out the truth so as to prove the innocence of the Singaporean swimmers. This might also caused uneasy between the Singapore and American swimmers when they meet each other again.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Ecology: China admits it has failed badly
For the past 3 years, China was unable to make any progress in protecting its environment, its target set last year to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product by 4% and pollutant emissions by 2% was not met either and China remains one of the world’s worst nations.
Countries were ranked on 30 indicators, including carbon dioxide emissions, daily sewage disposal rates, forest coverage and drinking water safety. China lags far behind in its ecological modernization as compared to its social and economic modernization. It was found that China produced 20 times more industrial waste than Germany; its air pollution was 7 times more serious than that in France, Canada and Sweden.
The Chinese Academy of Science, together with the think tank has proposed the setting up of 3 new ministries to give the government more opportunities to solve China’s environmental problems.The Chinese leadership under President Hu Jintao has made balancing environmental protection with economic growth a top priority but all these might already be too late.
I think that China was unable to make any progress as it might be too obsessed with its advancement and development that its ecology and pollution caused by that advancement/development was neglected. If China were to concentrate more on reducing pollution and saving the environment, this problem might be solved in a much quicker than expected.
Countries were ranked on 30 indicators, including carbon dioxide emissions, daily sewage disposal rates, forest coverage and drinking water safety. China lags far behind in its ecological modernization as compared to its social and economic modernization. It was found that China produced 20 times more industrial waste than Germany; its air pollution was 7 times more serious than that in France, Canada and Sweden.
The Chinese Academy of Science, together with the think tank has proposed the setting up of 3 new ministries to give the government more opportunities to solve China’s environmental problems.The Chinese leadership under President Hu Jintao has made balancing environmental protection with economic growth a top priority but all these might already be too late.
I think that China was unable to make any progress as it might be too obsessed with its advancement and development that its ecology and pollution caused by that advancement/development was neglected. If China were to concentrate more on reducing pollution and saving the environment, this problem might be solved in a much quicker than expected.
"The family plays a critical role in our society. Do you agree?"
I do agree that the family plays a critical role in our society; I would take the family as the roots of a society, within a family new life would be reproduced and the family generation would thus be carried on.
The family will teach the children moral values like, integrity, responsibility, love, generosity, compassion and many more important values. Even though the media, school, friends and the public might be able to influence the children on some of these values, it would not have a lasting impact unlike the family because of the time that the family spent with the children is much longer. The family would also be able to help the children stay away from some bad influence on the media and internet and bring them back on the right path if they had gone bad. These children will eventually grow up to be indispensable youths and adults who will help the society to advance and grow.
The family will also be able to comfort the children when they had failed a task and teach them determination and motivate them further so they would try harder the next time to achieve their goals/tasks. The family will also aid in promoting national cohesiveness as the family members will have a sense of belonging to the country. The family is also very important for passing on socialization skills. Rich cultures and knowledge would be passed down from generation to generation. The family would also teach the children to be independent and learn to fend for them so when they grow up, they will be able to fight for their own beliefs instead of just depending on others for help all the time. The family will provide physical protection and emotional and economics support to the children so as to help them go further, as well as letting them know they will always have the support of their family.
Therefore, I feel that the family plays a very crucial role in our society.
The family will teach the children moral values like, integrity, responsibility, love, generosity, compassion and many more important values. Even though the media, school, friends and the public might be able to influence the children on some of these values, it would not have a lasting impact unlike the family because of the time that the family spent with the children is much longer. The family would also be able to help the children stay away from some bad influence on the media and internet and bring them back on the right path if they had gone bad. These children will eventually grow up to be indispensable youths and adults who will help the society to advance and grow.
The family will also be able to comfort the children when they had failed a task and teach them determination and motivate them further so they would try harder the next time to achieve their goals/tasks. The family will also aid in promoting national cohesiveness as the family members will have a sense of belonging to the country. The family is also very important for passing on socialization skills. Rich cultures and knowledge would be passed down from generation to generation. The family would also teach the children to be independent and learn to fend for them so when they grow up, they will be able to fight for their own beliefs instead of just depending on others for help all the time. The family will provide physical protection and emotional and economics support to the children so as to help them go further, as well as letting them know they will always have the support of their family.
Therefore, I feel that the family plays a very crucial role in our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)