singer vs szilagyi

singapore is known all across the globe for her multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. despite the fact that there are lots of different religious and cultural practices, peace and serenity prevails in our country.

due to a very simple reason. singapore places great emphasis on being socially responsible about expression of thought and feelings. singapore experienced how being irresponsible can lead to racial tension, as seen in the 1964 racial riots.

however, the two articles do raise two important question.

'should freedom of speech be practiced without enforcing limits and boundaries?'

'or should there be mainly a greater focus on social responsibility?'

in my opinion, i feel that freedom of speech should be practiced without enforcing any limits and boundaries. on top of that, there should be a greater focus on social responsibility. these two elements complement each other and hence would enable a more open, though safer environment.

freedom of speech enables viewpoints to be expressed freely, and this is important as democracy means that everyone is fairly and equally treated. this element of democracy can thus be achieved only if every individual in a democratic country has his voice heard and is respected for his opinions.

at this juncture, i'd expect people to come up and say that such freedom of speech cannot be implemented in singapore as the nature of our society goes counter to freedom of speech. many claim that insensitive remarks, libel and flaming will pepper blogs, forums and media. this will lead to racial, religious and cultural tension that will have history repeating itself where singapore experiences greater and bloodier riots.

that's where the focus of social responsibility comes in. with the emphasis of being socially responsible in blogging or in posting an article in the media or forum, freedom of speech and social responsibility can act hand in hand. when this happens, we can be assurred that freedom of speech is not utilised to create discord and problems that might threaten our national sovereignty.

hence, i say that it's not a matter of adopting a single author's approach of free speech. i believe that both is integral in ensuring that free speech can be practiced without a backlash to the country's safety.

freedom of speech is an integral part in a democratic country. hence, we cannot stamp our foot down and control it. that mocks the value of democracy. focus on social responsibility is the key in ensuring that we all benefit from the newfound freedom of having everyone's views and opinions expressed freely, yet conducively.

commentary of a friend's blog entry

nicole khong zijia 11/07
http://nicole-ism.blogspot.com

'youtube has no ethics or principles and is created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. do you agree?'

i agree with the view to a large extent. youtube is now a fast growing website that is gaining immense popularity. it's a website that basically enables users to upload any media-based material, like songs or videos. there are no restrictions and one can post simply anything. in this materialistic world, we all pursue success. similarly to youtube, they enforce minimal restrictions such that users enjoy their services so much that youtube reaps tremendous profits. this shows that, youtube does intend to benefit users so greatly simply for the benefit of monetary influx.

youtube's open nature is good in the sense that we can get a varied amount of media and entertainment. however, many fail to notice that this very open policy actually infringes the rules of media and entertainment. users tend to simply upload movies and such without bothering to note the privacy statement or copyright laws. this makes youtube almost an avenue for illegal content online. does this show that youtube practices morals and ethics? no. they simply do not empower their media search engine with proper upright media rules and regulations.

furthermore, in this world of high advancement in technology and such, we are constantly looking for avenues that enable us to get the juiciest bites of media on the run. people turn to avenues like youtube where media is easily tapped on. the market for media is so great that websites such as youtube is highly pressurized into supplying what is demanded by the masses. we can thus see that youtube sometimes does not have a basis of foundation that it builts its website on. but it's based on market and demand.

crime and punishment

(B)

i agree to a large extent that any form of punishment that is effective meted out in maintaining law and order is justified.

law and order in any country is integral to the country's development. enforcing law and order is crucial so that the country's economic development, social and political stability is maintained.

effective punishment that is meted out to deal with offenders of the law is always justified for the very reason previously mentioned. offenders should not be viewed in a light manner. punishment has to be dished out appropriately.

firstly, effective punishment instills in the wrongdoer the element of fear. this enables him to have a mental imprint or reminder not to commit such an offence in the future. this is important, especially if the crime committed is serious in nature. effective punishment ensures that such act is dealt with.

secondly, effective punishment acts a deterrent so that others do not follow suit. they do not dare commit such similar offences for fear of facing an equivalent punishment. people will only be deterred in the presence of effective punishment in the justice system.

of course, effective punishment raises eyebrows about whether the level of severity of punishments is really fair in light of the crime committed. many feel that sometimes authorities implement overly strict measures of punishment for the sole benefit of inflicting pain equivalent to the level of crime committed. others feel that it's an discrete manner of torture.

my personal opinion is that, authorities are responsible for being fair and just in handing down sentences. it is a premature judgement to assume that authorities are mere sadists who only seek to mete out punishments for the sake of witnessing torture.

effective punishment at first glance may seem like an overly strict approach. however, considering how a country's law and order may be in utter chaos without an efficient justice system, effective punishment is simply a measure of governance and law and order. it is part and parcel of any strong and democratic government.

we have to learn to accept the presence of effective punishment in our midst. they're not only beneficial to the law and order of a country, but also ensures that the country thrives in all other aspects. for example, an economy cannot thrive if a country is in anarchy.

hence i strongly feel that effective punishment in maintaining law and order is justified in all circumstances.

energy demand

with the increasing demand for energy by a rapidly advancing world, questions have been raised about our supply of energy. it is clear that now, we cannot depend on fossil fuels like oil and coal. we know that it's going to run out. scientists now are confident that we can go nuclear.

well, yes, nuclear energy is powerful, of that there is no doubt. i've witnessed the accounts of the chernobyl incident. the devastation that a slight miscalculation can bring is truly a painful thought to bear.

i feel that, it is understandable that with the increased pressure to meet energy demands, we turn to nuclear, which is only instinctive since it's the most powerful. but are we so confident of our abilities and breakthroughs in science and technology that we can exploit the power of nuclear activity.

as an individual, i'm scared. really scared. there has been so much debate going on and so many parties are in favour for this new form of energy source. what will happen. i really do not want to see a repeat of the chernobyl incident occurring. since the demand of energy is so great, whatever incident that occurs is going to be catastrophic!

furthermore, there is the unavoidable question of what is to be done with the radioactive waste, or rather, nuclear waste. one form of nuclear waste is plutonium which can be directly used to be made into nuclear bombs. ha! it's a recipe for more terrorism and attacks.

authorities must weigh the consequences to everything and make the right judgement for the sake of humanity.

however, my view is simple. if we are really super confident of our skills and knowledge at science and technology, why not use that technology to tap onto other resources of fuel? like renewable sources like wind and air. can't technology develop something to make such sources viable for energy consumption and demand.

this is such a worthwhile pursuit rather than to delve again into nuclear sources of energy. it's a risk. a risk that we can avoid.

singapore's education system

the singapore education system has been debated so aggressively these days. especially with the rise of single pointers o level graduates opting to pursue the polytechnic education, in contrast to the norm of heading to the junior colleges.

i've read so many articles with regards to this issue, hence it seems prudent to discuss this in light of this general paper blog.

at first glance, it seems wonderful that finally, the polytechnics are beginning to get a fresh batch of talented students, who try their hand at another route to education, instead of just blindly opting for the junior colleges.

this shows that the education system is diversifying. no longer is there the stagnant cliche that goes something like;

'junior colleges are for the singaporean elites and polytechnics for the academically less capable.'

of course, there are more crass statements equivalent to the statement above, but let's not go there.

with this new development or rather trend of students vying for new and unchartered grounds, like heading for polytechnics, arts schools and the like, what are the consequences for those students who have depended on places in such institutions because other courses were more competitive?

in other, more frank, words. students who didnt do well.

they either make it to a poor course of their choice or fail to make the cut for admissions into a polytechnic and go into institutes of technical education (which is also gaining in recognition and competitiveness). worse come to worst, they've nowhere to go.

it is clear that our system has gone up a notch in it's competitiveness. students now have better, stronger rivals aiming for the same spot in any institutions.

junior colleges, undoubtedly, with the whole integrated programmes for top five schools like hwachong, temasek, and victoria. also for those junior colleges with special academic and science programmes like anglo-chinese and anderson.

polytechnic courses with new chic and interesting yet challenging courses, like biomedical, biotechnology, design, gaming and more.

private institutions like lasalle-sia college of the arts, raffles arts school and other fashion, arts and design academies.

this may be a positive outcome in singapore's pursuit for a globalised economy, where students specialise in every arena of arts and sciences. but let us ponder, if this intense competition increases as time goes by, would we slander those who simply cannot cope with the tides of competition?

though we may have an amazing pool of local and foreign talent, we fail to notice that there are some who simply do not have the grades, but have the talent. with our immense emphasis on grades to get into insitutions to mould our talents, does that mean that this unfortunate group is left aside? shunned from society and made a burden? when they can be equally or much more competent in contributing to economy?

in a debate i had with my friends sometime back, we talked about this trend objectively. being objective was important, since we all hail from junior colleges.

we agreed that it is a great development. that we've finally started to tap onto our local talent, without realising it. we now have more local talent in arts schools, and in new courses in the polytechnics.

however, we questioned the future. the ultimatum is the aim of going to a university. it's important, with this new edge of aggression to be the best, a diploma at the polytechnic level doesnt signal the end of education. we, as students and individuals leading the nation in the future have to achieve greater competency and relevancy by attaining a degree or better.

with such huge populace of capable students in jcs, polys and specialised schools, what pressure is this going to exert on our local universities?

we felt that being jc students, it's like a safety net, as long as you do well for your a levels, it's a direct admission into the universities. but poly students and all have to thrash it out and prove their mettle, before gaining admission.

it's not easy, with only five percent of them proving their distinction above others and gaining acceptance into the universities.

yes, many claim that anything is possible, with the right attitude, priorities and determination. but can that be the antidote to the problem for all time? surely a positive attitude, under tremendous stress, pressure and failure would crumble into self inferiority and negativity?

there's more risks to benefits, as far as my eye can see. well, then again, it's just a matter of personal opinion.

but the bottom line is that, i feel more should be done to address this issue. if we are to contribute, the competition should be healthy and everyone should be given a chance and right to actively give to the well-being and sovereignty of our country and its economy.

it seems now that it's up to the determination, the right attitude and priority of our leaders to look into this matter.

global warming

this pandemic has been talked about so often. it takes up a substantiable amount of our newspapers, with depressing titles depicting nasty increases in global temperatures leading to devastating consequences.

not surprisingly, there's a lot of debates, in the news, media and online about who is really to blame about this issue.

the debates now are split into the three different opinionated groups.

but before i delve into the three proper, let's just take a look at global warming a little more closely. global warming is a process of the earth heating up, hence the term 'global warming'. it is mainly due to the rising emissions of gases that deteriorate and deplete the ozone layer, hence leading to more sun rays entering the earth's atmosphere and are not able to exit into space, leading to the heating and warming effect.

the gases are mainly, methane, carbon monoxide, chlorine and many other gases that i'll learn under organic chemistry next year. laughs.

the first group of self-acclaimed environmentalists claim that the blame should go to industries which produce such great amount of emissions of greenhouse gases. they claim that with the advanced technologies now present, there should be some device used, similar to catalytic converters in cars, to convert those dangerous gases into some compounds which are environmentally friendly.

the second group of mother earth advocates feel that the blame goes to the creator of industrial revolution who revolutionised how we implement technologies into the world around us. they believe that it's with this creation which led to the existence of global warming.

the final group has a more interesting view, both industrial revolution and industries are to blame.

i agree with the final group's point of view. first of all, i don't think that everything has to do with just industries or the creator of industrial revolution independently. that's pretty far-fetched and is not a supported claim.

we have to understand that industrial revolution, it was the use of steam engines to power machinery. the last time i checked, steam, the gaseous form of water was never a villain to the ozone layer.

consequently, i think what opinion was that, with the growing world population and demands for production from every aspect increasing, there was a need to tap on other sources of energy. hence, technology was improved and now, we see the usage of oil, coal and other natural resources. we now even see nuclear energy as the future propellant for energy demands.

it is clear that there is a possibility that the industrial revolution is, or rather was, the main trigger that set off ambitious aims at attaining greater energy production, without taking into consideration the possible effects of what their actions might do to the environment and the earth.

another cause of global warming: inconscientious industries that seek profit but fail to note the long-term effects of their actions.

industries now have become multi-faceted. with the growing affluence of countries, and the booming economy, some have moulded service industries, as opposed to primary and secondary industries.

hence, with the booming economy and an increasing demand for goods and services, industries have to reach out and attain these wants. this, i feel, is good for the growth and development of our countries. but sometimes, i think that we failed to implement measures that ensure that the industries not only contribute positively for now, but for the long-term.

this means that, they should be contributing to the economy actively, yet being stewards to the environment. i have seen reports of how much emissions of gases industries can generate and wonder why technology so advanced cannot do anything to address this issue.

surely there must be some viable inventions that scientists can come up to perhaps destroy chlorine atoms in the atmosphere, to prevent them from destroying ozone layer?

or a wonderful catalytic converter that can convert the major dangerous compounds into something more eco-friendly, or even beneficial to the environment?

i think that while we have successfully tapped on advanced technology to suit our daily life, and make me more comfortable, through use of air conditioners when days get hot, to mobile phones for communication and computers for data proccessing, i'm sure that we can use such technology for our long-term benefit.

furthermore, if we fail to address this issue, our so-called successes in technological advancements might lead to our very downfall if the global warming situation doesnt improve.

we have to do something. everyone, from every walks of life have to come together to generate ideas to create a possible solution to this problem.

it is already too late to continue being ignorant to this issue.

criminal torture

before i even delve into the issue discussed this week on criminal torture, i must admit that the very vague articles sure demoralises me to a great extent.

okay, criminal torture. an issue that is being debated in the political and social world. the question 'is criminal torture ever justified?' still looms over our heads, seeking an answer and a long explanation.

on one side of the argument, it definitely is not. such torture is never right and hence can never be justified in any situation. in my opinion, it is clear why.

torture is, i believe, a lowly and an act of pure cowardice that is amounted from desperation and a lack of direction to approach a certain matter. an authority may be initially abhor such practices of criminal torture, but in the event that they have a lack of lead and investigations are insubstantiable, one cannot deny that torture seems like the most viable and enticing option. a short-cut.

but it is only prudent that we look at the practicality of such approaches. not only does criminal torture seek to degrade an individual, it shows how authorities do not exercise professionalism in addressing the issue in a more objective and upright manner.

though at times, the criminal might have committed such a heinous crime, why must authorities also stoop to an equally low level of morals showed by the criminal and torture him, assuming that that does justice? it might instead augment the tense situation, as more crimes might occur, with people showing their disapproval of such a scheme of justice.

it is clear that torture is not wise and there are better alternatives. like better investigation, more diplomatic approaches and such.

consequently, at times, in our anger and frustrations as a nation, we wonder whether, maybe, just maybe, is such criminal torture ever justified.

take a look at the september eleventh attack on the world trade centre. the event that not only shattered the global economy but also irrevocably shattered the national pride of a country, in this case, the united states of america.

i mean, if i was an american and i had such authoritative powers and managed to capture the criminal responsible for such malice, i'd love to ensure that every bit of his skin met with a red-hot poker. that would truly lead me to believe, that justice was met.

similarly, in real-life, our emotions sometimes, more often than not, clog our logic, and our ability to reason carefully. we think that it's right, that the severity of the situation is directly proportional to the amount of torture that one might receive in punishment, with hopes that he'd atone for his mistakes. but is that really?

or are we practising a system whereby it breeds people not to be gracious and faithful, but just a creed of people who seek to inflict pain for justice?

we have to really look at this carefully and tease out the facts. as to whether the system is for the greater good, or does it only undermine our values and respect for other human beings, who are made equally to every single one of us. it is just their wrongdoings that somewhat sets us apart from them.

as a student, i'm used to telling my friends in consolation that 'we all make mistakes'. i'm sure that many others also do so. if that's the case, then why is it that we find it so hard when what we're dealing with involves the pride of not an individual alone, but the whole nation's population.

i think that leaves us with a lot to ponder and think about.

till the next entry.