My topic is Leaders and their Private Lives
In a democracy, leaders are elected by the people. Hence they are expected to serve the people and exhibit servant leadership. Good leaders must be willing to sacrifice, rule with honesty and integrity and place the welfare of the country and its people first. With good leaders, the country can achieve peace, make progress and reap economic benefits.
As the Prime Minister of Singapore, I do not think that there should be a line drawn between private and public life. As far as I am concerned, the private life of the minister must be respectful. He must be exemplary in behavior and have integrity. This is to gain the trust and respect from the people of Singapore.
Even though he is a good leader, and should he be tainted by scandals, people will lose respect for him and may not trust him as much as before. The people may wonder if they had voted correctly, thus his credibility is questionable. They may even think that he should not be getting his ministerial pay from taxpayer’s money when he is not of minister caliber in which social mores is one expectation.
To add on, leaders are public figures, hence they must set good examples for the people. If he is found to be tainted by a scandal in his private life, he must step down, regardless of his position in the cabinet as the people have lest respect in him and cannot be trusted anymore. In some cases, the people may protest if he did not step down as they think he may not be a good leader. As said, leaders must set good examples as people look up at them as role models of the society. If the leader is suspected to be tainted by scandal, he must be tried by the court. If he is found guilty of his crime and is against the law, he should be punished as an ordinary citizen, and not a leader.
In conclusion, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, I have this to say. In a multi-racial and multi-religious society, I expect leaders to be judged by their private lives even if they do not like it. Traditional and moral values upheld. The private life of leaders must stand up to scrutiny and we will not exercise the extreme liberty of that practiced in the West.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?
I agree that news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to extremes to get sensational news to a certain extent.
The news media should be blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to extremes to get sensational news just so that they can increase the number of readers and earn more profit. And how would they spice up their news to make more people want to read their news? By stooping to this level of course, such as phone hacking, spying and many others. They intrude into many people's private life, such as the famous, riches. I believe that everyone have the right to have a private life and thus, paparazzi should not intrude into the private life of others.
However, we should not entirely blame the news media. We too must blame ourselves, the readers for wanting to read sensational news about the private lives of others. As we are interested in those sensational news, news medias would do anything that can to find what we want (sensational news) to increase their popularity so that we will buy their newspaper, thus allowing them to gain a profit. Although it was obvious that peeking into the private lives of others is wrong, readers continue to ignore this and continue reading tabloid. Instead of blaming the news media, we should really think over what we have done to cause this problem.
Lastly, the law did not do anything to stop this paparazzi culture, resulting the news media to go to the extreme to get juicy news to keep the readers alive. As the law did not do anything to stop it, this paparazzi culture slowly grew out of hand. However despite the situation getting worse and worse, the law still do not do something about it.
In conclusion, I believe that all of the above should be blamed as we should not intrude into other people's private life. Also, we mus do something to stop is culture from going out of hand.
The news media should be blamed for this unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to extremes to get sensational news just so that they can increase the number of readers and earn more profit. And how would they spice up their news to make more people want to read their news? By stooping to this level of course, such as phone hacking, spying and many others. They intrude into many people's private life, such as the famous, riches. I believe that everyone have the right to have a private life and thus, paparazzi should not intrude into the private life of others.
However, we should not entirely blame the news media. We too must blame ourselves, the readers for wanting to read sensational news about the private lives of others. As we are interested in those sensational news, news medias would do anything that can to find what we want (sensational news) to increase their popularity so that we will buy their newspaper, thus allowing them to gain a profit. Although it was obvious that peeking into the private lives of others is wrong, readers continue to ignore this and continue reading tabloid. Instead of blaming the news media, we should really think over what we have done to cause this problem.
Lastly, the law did not do anything to stop this paparazzi culture, resulting the news media to go to the extreme to get juicy news to keep the readers alive. As the law did not do anything to stop it, this paparazzi culture slowly grew out of hand. However despite the situation getting worse and worse, the law still do not do something about it.
In conclusion, I believe that all of the above should be blamed as we should not intrude into other people's private life. Also, we mus do something to stop is culture from going out of hand.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Merchant of Venice (Trial Scene)
By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:
1. Is there true justice? Why?
No, there is never true justice during the trial scene. Why is this so? Firstly, Shylock was supposed to be given 1 pound of Antonio's flesh as Antonio was unable to pay his debt which he had signed with Shylock, but he did not received it in the end. This is because Portia had disguised herself as a lawyer and played with the words and loopholes in the bond between Shylock and Antonio, to her advantage. She managed to prevent the process from happening as she allowed Shylock to take a pound of flesh from Antonio as long as he does not spill a drop of blood. As we all know, it is virtually impossible to cut a pound of flesh without bleeding, thus Shylock has to surrender to his fate and was unable to get what he deserved. As I read, I discovered that Portia's true motive was to side with the Christians and save Antonio from the start.
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
As there was true mercy to a certain extent. Firstly, Portia and the Duke appealed to Shylock's mercy various times but Shylock refused to listen to them even though Antonio could return his debt. Later, Bassanio reveal that he was willing to increase the amount of ducats by 10 times, but Shylock still did not want it as he is determined to give the pound of flesh, which he had rightly deserved. This tells us that Portia and the Duke had gave Shylock true mercy.
However, as Shylock did not listen despite the increase in ducats, Portia was forced to trap Shylock in a situation where he was unable to get his pound of flesh and ducats. This cause Shylock to convert into a Christian against his will and his dignity, riches and friends gone. To Christians, it is said that Portia had done Shylock a favor, but Shylock did not think that way.
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
Yes, I believed Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. In the text, Portia had disguised herself into a lawyer and managed to manipulate the court by playing with the words and loop holes in the bond between Shylock and Antonio, causing Antonio of be freed from Shylock getting his 1 pound of flesh. One incident can be seen in real life, which involves Richard F. He earned earned a reputation as one of the nation's wiliest and most powerful plaintiff's attorneys. He had he conspired to bribe a judge to escape from his crimes.
For more info:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/15/nation/na-scruggs15
1. Is there true justice? Why?
No, there is never true justice during the trial scene. Why is this so? Firstly, Shylock was supposed to be given 1 pound of Antonio's flesh as Antonio was unable to pay his debt which he had signed with Shylock, but he did not received it in the end. This is because Portia had disguised herself as a lawyer and played with the words and loopholes in the bond between Shylock and Antonio, to her advantage. She managed to prevent the process from happening as she allowed Shylock to take a pound of flesh from Antonio as long as he does not spill a drop of blood. As we all know, it is virtually impossible to cut a pound of flesh without bleeding, thus Shylock has to surrender to his fate and was unable to get what he deserved. As I read, I discovered that Portia's true motive was to side with the Christians and save Antonio from the start.
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
As there was true mercy to a certain extent. Firstly, Portia and the Duke appealed to Shylock's mercy various times but Shylock refused to listen to them even though Antonio could return his debt. Later, Bassanio reveal that he was willing to increase the amount of ducats by 10 times, but Shylock still did not want it as he is determined to give the pound of flesh, which he had rightly deserved. This tells us that Portia and the Duke had gave Shylock true mercy.
However, as Shylock did not listen despite the increase in ducats, Portia was forced to trap Shylock in a situation where he was unable to get his pound of flesh and ducats. This cause Shylock to convert into a Christian against his will and his dignity, riches and friends gone. To Christians, it is said that Portia had done Shylock a favor, but Shylock did not think that way.
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
Yes, I believed Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. In the text, Portia had disguised herself into a lawyer and managed to manipulate the court by playing with the words and loop holes in the bond between Shylock and Antonio, causing Antonio of be freed from Shylock getting his 1 pound of flesh. One incident can be seen in real life, which involves Richard F. He earned earned a reputation as one of the nation's wiliest and most powerful plaintiff's attorneys. He had he conspired to bribe a judge to escape from his crimes.
For more info:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/15/nation/na-scruggs15
Sunday, July 31, 2011
An open letter to the education minister from a secondary four stuent
Source:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
This is an open letter to the education minister written by a secondary four student who will be taking her sec 4 'O' Level examination this year.
To what extend do you agree with the issues the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
I agree to a large extent. Since I entered school, most of my school teachers, had been stressing on getting good marks in examinations. As years past, it was getting boring due to the fact that we are only learning what our teachers are teaching and not what we want to learn and explore. I personally feel that there is no point in studying a subject that do not interest you as you would not be able to give it your best. In primary school, teachers only teach what is necessary to get good grades for the exam, but is't the role of a teacher is to spur and encourage their students to learn more about the subject. During my school days, when I ask a question that is related to the topic, but at a higher level, my teacher would tell me that it is not required in my examinations and if i would like to find out, I have to do it alone. What is the point of teachers, if they failed to do their duty of answering the questions of their students?
Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
Yes, I think it is a very well-crafted letter as it is formal, yet firm. She is able to bring out her points without being to harsh. However, if we observe closely, we can sense that the she is trying to keep down her frustration on the Singapore's education. Despite her frustration, she still managed to be polite.
If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society's betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.
Firstly, I feel that students should be allowed to choose what subject they would like to be focus more on. This will help them to be more interested in the subject that they choose. They will be able to explore higher levels of their subject, thus bringing their knowledge of the subject to a higher level. Students should be given a lesson to do their own research at the library or using the school internet.
Next, I believed that schools should promote the student's mother tongue. As generations past, lesser people feel that their mother-tongue are of used in their future as more people are speaking with English as a mean to communicate with each other. Also, mother-tongue help to emphasis on traditions and moral value. From this we can see that mother-tongue is indeed important to students.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/12/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister-from-a-secondary-4-student/
This is an open letter to the education minister written by a secondary four student who will be taking her sec 4 'O' Level examination this year.
To what extend do you agree with the issues the student has raised here? Point out some issues of agreement and possible contention.
I agree to a large extent. Since I entered school, most of my school teachers, had been stressing on getting good marks in examinations. As years past, it was getting boring due to the fact that we are only learning what our teachers are teaching and not what we want to learn and explore. I personally feel that there is no point in studying a subject that do not interest you as you would not be able to give it your best. In primary school, teachers only teach what is necessary to get good grades for the exam, but is't the role of a teacher is to spur and encourage their students to learn more about the subject. During my school days, when I ask a question that is related to the topic, but at a higher level, my teacher would tell me that it is not required in my examinations and if i would like to find out, I have to do it alone. What is the point of teachers, if they failed to do their duty of answering the questions of their students?
Examine her tone and attitude in this letter. Do you think it’s a well-crafted letter with the appropriate tone?
Yes, I think it is a very well-crafted letter as it is formal, yet firm. She is able to bring out her points without being to harsh. However, if we observe closely, we can sense that the she is trying to keep down her frustration on the Singapore's education. Despite her frustration, she still managed to be polite.
If you should write a letter to Minister of Education, what are some issues you would raise? Remember- your intention is to make the system better for society's betterment via CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.
Firstly, I feel that students should be allowed to choose what subject they would like to be focus more on. This will help them to be more interested in the subject that they choose. They will be able to explore higher levels of their subject, thus bringing their knowledge of the subject to a higher level. Students should be given a lesson to do their own research at the library or using the school internet.
Next, I believed that schools should promote the student's mother tongue. As generations past, lesser people feel that their mother-tongue are of used in their future as more people are speaking with English as a mean to communicate with each other. Also, mother-tongue help to emphasis on traditions and moral value. From this we can see that mother-tongue is indeed important to students.
In your opinion, is money important in a relationship?
I do not think that money is that important in a relationship to a certain extent. And why is that so? If money is important in a relationship, does that mean that the richest people in the world have the best relationship with their partners? There am many scandals involving the rich. I believed that the most important in a relationship is true love. If the couple have true love for each other, the relationship will be very good as they will have genuine trust between them.For example in today's society, we can see teenagers having a relationship with each other. Both sides value love than money as both tend to be not very rich. Their togetherness tells us there they have genuine love for each other.
However, to make a relationship successful, money too have a role to play. If both couples are unable to feed themselves, even though they have true love for each other, there will face obstacles in their relationship. Also, money is important in a relationship as it is the source for luxuries. In the present society, few young couples tend to settle for a simple life. An example can be seen from younger people starting a relationship with people of a much older age who have lots of money. Are they doing it for money? Or are they doing it for love? Most would say that they are doing it for money as most people would like to marry someone of their same age.
In conclusion, I think that to make a good relationship, they must have true love( the most important) and enough money to get by in their life.
However, to make a relationship successful, money too have a role to play. If both couples are unable to feed themselves, even though they have true love for each other, there will face obstacles in their relationship. Also, money is important in a relationship as it is the source for luxuries. In the present society, few young couples tend to settle for a simple life. An example can be seen from younger people starting a relationship with people of a much older age who have lots of money. Are they doing it for money? Or are they doing it for love? Most would say that they are doing it for money as most people would like to marry someone of their same age.
In conclusion, I think that to make a good relationship, they must have true love( the most important) and enough money to get by in their life.
In your opinion, how has war evolved from the past to present?
Question: In your opinion, how has war evolved from the past to present? Please use examples to justify your opinions.
War has been fought for countless of years. As the years goes by, war has evolved, bringing in more and more weapons of mass destruction, which can be seen from where bring used their bare hands to knives to guns and to nuclear weapons. As the weapons in war gradually get more powerful, more people are harmed. Lets imagine this situation, if a army of 100,000 with just their bare hands and knives versus an army of 1000 equipped with high tech weapons, which will win? The answer is obvious, of course the army of 1000 will win, thus TECHNOLOGY is the one which cause war to evolved from the past to the present. An example can be seen from World War 2 against Japan. At first, it was a hard fight between America and Japan, but after nuclear bombs where introduced in the war, the Japanese surrendered in fight. However, an estimated 75,000 people lay dead, and the nature of war had changed, presumably forever.
However, technology did not change the nature of war. War remained what it had been since the time when the first band of cavemen, carrying sticks and stones, went out to attack its neighbor. It was still as brutal as before, or maybe even worse. Technology was used to advance or defend the interests of the group or organization that waged it, it also remained an instrument of politics. All this was as true in 2000 BCE, and presumably 50,000 BCE, as it was in 1945.
War has been fought for countless of years. As the years goes by, war has evolved, bringing in more and more weapons of mass destruction, which can be seen from where bring used their bare hands to knives to guns and to nuclear weapons. As the weapons in war gradually get more powerful, more people are harmed. Lets imagine this situation, if a army of 100,000 with just their bare hands and knives versus an army of 1000 equipped with high tech weapons, which will win? The answer is obvious, of course the army of 1000 will win, thus TECHNOLOGY is the one which cause war to evolved from the past to the present. An example can be seen from World War 2 against Japan. At first, it was a hard fight between America and Japan, but after nuclear bombs where introduced in the war, the Japanese surrendered in fight. However, an estimated 75,000 people lay dead, and the nature of war had changed, presumably forever.
However, technology did not change the nature of war. War remained what it had been since the time when the first band of cavemen, carrying sticks and stones, went out to attack its neighbor. It was still as brutal as before, or maybe even worse. Technology was used to advance or defend the interests of the group or organization that waged it, it also remained an instrument of politics. All this was as true in 2000 BCE, and presumably 50,000 BCE, as it was in 1945.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Reflection on the "The Soldier"
1. Annually, we need young men in Singapore to do national service. Why do you think national service is compulsory in Singapore and why is this important.
I think that it teaches the young a sense of responsibility and duty. Also, it provides manpower for meeting minimum military force requirements. It provides training to civilians, which serves as a well-prepared military force in times of war or emergency. It is important as it emphasize a sense of belonging to the Singapore and induce national loyalty in the soldiers. National Service is important as it helps to create a bond between people of different races. It is there where people learn to appreciate the differences of different religion and culture. This shows us that national service not only help us bond with different races and make friends, it also give Singaporeans a sense of patriotism and pride of our country.
2. In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for the country, England. Do you have the same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why?Do you find this same spirit of patriotism in Singapore.
Hmm... this is a little hard to answer. Although I cherish Singapore a lot as it is the place where I am born and where my family is, I am not so extreme to sacrifice myself like the author in war, who is willing to give his all and die for his country. I will only do it when it is really necessary. I will go to war if I am forced and will fight my best, however I may not have the same spirit of patriotism as the author.
In Singapore, not many have a sense of patriotism. However, if there is a war, which involved Singapore, people in Singapore may have a sense of patriotism as it is said that the worst usually bring out the best in people.
I think that it teaches the young a sense of responsibility and duty. Also, it provides manpower for meeting minimum military force requirements. It provides training to civilians, which serves as a well-prepared military force in times of war or emergency. It is important as it emphasize a sense of belonging to the Singapore and induce national loyalty in the soldiers. National Service is important as it helps to create a bond between people of different races. It is there where people learn to appreciate the differences of different religion and culture. This shows us that national service not only help us bond with different races and make friends, it also give Singaporeans a sense of patriotism and pride of our country.
2. In the above poem, the speaker expresses his love for the country, England. Do you have the same spirit of patriotism towards Singapore? Why?Do you find this same spirit of patriotism in Singapore.
Hmm... this is a little hard to answer. Although I cherish Singapore a lot as it is the place where I am born and where my family is, I am not so extreme to sacrifice myself like the author in war, who is willing to give his all and die for his country. I will only do it when it is really necessary. I will go to war if I am forced and will fight my best, however I may not have the same spirit of patriotism as the author.
In Singapore, not many have a sense of patriotism. However, if there is a war, which involved Singapore, people in Singapore may have a sense of patriotism as it is said that the worst usually bring out the best in people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)