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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)