1. Globalisation and Culture
Def: refers to the increasing connectivity of economies and ways of life across the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6279679.stm
http://www.globalisationguide.org/04.html
http://www.spinneypress.com.au/202_book_desc.html
http://economics.about.com/od/globalizationtrade/l/aaglobalization.htm

Benefits of globalisation:
1) Economic benefits
2) Benefits poorer members of society
3) Rapid flow of IT
4) Globalisation is not new, but is a product of the industrial revolution.

Disadvantage of globalisation:
1) Freeing of financial markets has brought global instability
2) End of cultural diversity - tend to follow the culture of America
3) Falling wages of workers
4) Flood of migrants to cities in poor countries
5) Growing inequality across the world

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

In the 21st century, countries all across the world place great emphasis on the need for globalisation. It aims to the increase the connectivity of the world's economies and ways of life. The ultimate aim of globalisation is to bind the world's people more tightly into one global system. However, in this age where differences are beginning to be acknowledged, should same-sex marriage be legalised? Same-sex marriage means the recognition of the marriage between homosexuals by society. Some countries such as Canada and Belgium have already legalised the marriage between homosexuals. However, should the world follow suit?

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to all human rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind. The restriction of homosexual marriage can be regarded as a national practice of sexual discrimination, propagating further practice of that. Thus, same-sex marriage should be made legalised because all forms of discrimination are not to be tolerated if the final aim of globalisation is to be achieved. In most countries today, different forms of discrimination are starting to be controlled through the means of legislation. For example, Singapore recognises the need for racial harmony and that any form of racial discrimination is bound to have a drastic effect. Hence, laws are passed which prohibits any practise of racial discrimination. Since society are beginning to take action regarding discrimination, what is wrong with easing the problems of sexual discrimination by legalising homosexuals marriage? Sexual discrimination restricts a group of people ability to love someone of equal gender. This group of people, though a minority, are unable to devote their lives to someone completely because they are unable to marry. However, because they are a minority, they are already facing unequal treatment in other aspects such as job opportunities. Thus, if society is to progress to a more liberal one with globalisation in mind, same-sex marriage should be allowed because it would be unfair to isolate victims of sexual discrimination.


On the other hand, be legalising same-sex marriage, it will result in many undesirable social problems. It will be defying the definition of what constitutes a family - Father, mother, children. Since families are the most fundamental units of a society, by disrupting the constitution of families, it will ultimately affect society. By allowing same-sex marriage, it would lead to homosexual couples adopting children which could eventually result in a cycle of homosexuality. According to a Straits times article in July 2007, there is medical evidence indicating that children from same-sex homes run a greater risk of suffering from Gender Identity Disorder. Thus, what is a minority of society may turn up to eventually occupy a larger proportion of the world population. This would make solving the problems associated with homosexuality even harder. Moreover, a proper family is necessary for the development of children. Take for instance a family consisting of two mother and an adopted son. Who would the son follow as a male role model? In a normal family, a father is there to teach and nurture his son into being a man. However, when that male role model is missing, who would the son follow? While homosexuals may argue that the son can follow the mother displaying more masculinity, how would he know that that is masculinity in the first place when the mother looks so different from him? Moreover, it takes a man and a woman to pro-create. If same-sex marriage is allowed, while homosexuals can help reduce the number of orphans, they would contribute to the declining global birth rate, leading to an aging population as experienced by both Japan and Singapore. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalised since the social problems that result from it are far more devastating to the progression of society.

In conclusion, same-sex marriage should not be legalised because the eventual impact of that decision would be far more harmful to society than if we allow sexual discrimination to exist. Moreover, because the occurence of homosexuality can be associated to both environment and genetics, if we allow an environment that allows or even promotes homosexuality to exist, the number of people with wrong sexual orientation would increase. Hence, same-sex marriage is an absolute no if society were to reach closer to its goal of globalisation.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

With globalisation as the main focus of many economies today, the world as a whole can expect to enjoy a better standard of living with higher salaries. However, that is not the case. Poverty still exists among the rich despite the fact that more and more people are beginning the reap the benefits of globalisation. Poverty is the stage or condition in which one lacks a socially acceptable amount of money or material possession and it does not only exists in the developing countries such as Laos and South Africa but also in more developed countries such as the United States and Singapore.

Aristotle once said that "the mother of revolution and crime is poverty", meaning that poverty itself can lead to revolution and crime. Revolution is a movement to change a current socioeconomic situation or political organisation while crime is the commiting of an action that is illegal under the legislation system, in which offenders face penalties.

Today, what Aristotle said can be considered true to certain extent. Class divide has become a prominent issue with the effect of globalisation. The income disparity between the rich and the poor contributes to this widening class divide. In Singapore, blue collar job workers like cleaners earn three digits salary while other jobs such as office workers earn at least thrice their amount. With the increased cost for living, what blue collar job workers are earning are just sufficient for survival. They have no additional money to spend on luxuries or entertainment whereas majority of the population can afford to. Such unfairness would certainly raise discontentment among the poor and when they as a group decides to change their fate, it may result in a revolution. When an individual is unable to control him or herself, it may also lead to the commiting of crimes when the person is driven to desperation. Poverty itself can be regarded as a deprivation from luxuries, which according to a BBC article "Focus call on poverty crime link" in January 2005, may lead to crime. While the above are negative perpectives of how poverty could lead to revolution and crime, it may not always be pessimistic. The "Pledge to eliminate child poverty" article in March 1999 states that Britain is starting a revolution in an attempt for people to appreciate the welfare state and at the same time solve the problems regarding child poverty. This shows that revolution need not always be seen from a negative perspective and that it may be an attempt to tackle the main issue of poverty.

However, there are different viewpoints to Aristotle's quote as well. What he said may be reversed. Revolution, on the other hand, may lead to poverty as well. According to the article "The market: winners and losers" from BBC news in November 2003, two-third of China have an average income of less than a dollar a day. This was due to the industrial revolution which took place 200 years ago, thus showing how poverty may be a consequence of revolution instead. Revolution may lead to economic progression, raising people's standard of living. However, it also have the effect of widening class divide because not everyone can be guaranteed a part of the revolution success. There may also be other reasons as to what causes crimes and revolution. For instance, crime can also be due to prejudice, greed, personal pleasure and many other reasons. In the case of personal pleasure, a barman was murdered by a gang who was on a brutal spree of violence in London according to the article "Man killed in 'night of violence'" in October 2005. The recent Thai coup in 2006 also demostrated how revolution can occur due to political discontentment when the administrative reform group decided to force Thaksin to resign from his position. Hence, these show how other reasons may attribute to revolution and crimes.

In conclusion, while what Aristotle said may be true that poverty does lead to crimes and revolutions, there are also other cases whereby other reasons such as discontentment contribute to crime and revolution. Moreover, the reverse may also occur and hence, it is not definite to totally agree with Aristotle's quote.

Other forms of discrimination

Lookism
Def: Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123853&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86602&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2622184&page=1

Ageism
Def: Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A5267063

Disablism
Def: discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disablism

Xenophobia
Def: Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

Freedom of Expression VS Social Responsiblity

Democracy is a government in which the power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Most countries today, including Singapore, have adopted Democracy as the main governing system which focuses on individual freedom and rights. It means that everyone has the right to express themselves freely and this right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. However, recent publication of cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad has raised certain controversial issues about the limit to freedom of expression and the subsequent events that follow lead to political instability and even violence. This has come into the concern of Singapore, which being a multi-racial society is prone to racial conflicts and riots as was the case in the 1964 riots.

Freedom of expression is what makes up the fundamental principles of Democracy and an author Peter Singer believes that there should not be any limitation to this freedom of expression as it would be going against Democracy and in a way, sort of reverting back to Communism or Nazism. With the right to freely express oneself, Singer believes that it would result in progression, both in the economy of the country and the spiritual development for human. This is because certain sensitive issues such as that based on religions as mentioned are often left undiscussed, culmulating in greater conflict. For instance, people who are skeptical about some religious beliefs should be allowed to freely voice out their opinion as the restriction of that may lead to the formation of an internal anti-religious group, heightening religious tension. People with strong faith in the religion should also have the basic courtesy and tolerance level to listen to other opinion which may be offensive to them because most of the time, it is due to the discontentment of the majority which escalates simple trivial matters into global controversial issues.

Social Responsibility, however, as mentioned by another author Zsofia Szilagyi is the individual restriction of his or her own freedom of expression. As the saying goes, there is a price to everything and freedom of course has its own price to pay. One must have the maturity to know the consequences of his own actions and the social responsiblity to show respect for others in society. While it may be true that freedom of expression is part of Democracy, the government may play a part in restricting certain sensitive topics for the welfare of the society. This is when censorship comes into place. The government, in this case, is taking on a paternalistic role, believing that it would be better off for society if it was to intervene instead. However, sometimes government may fail to do so and as such, it is up to individual to do things for the welfare of the public. This is when social responsibility comes into place.

In Singapore context, both of these authors' views can be applied. Singer's belief on freedom of expression is important because in today society, the censorship already plays a great role in controlling people freedom. If even freedom of expression is not allowed, it may lead to political instablity as the principles of democracy is not achieved. It would also lead to the discussion of certain issues which may not be that sensitive as compared to that of the cartoon of the Prophet but the result of discussion of it can benefit Singapore. Szilagyi's perspective also ought to be taken note of because being a multi-racial society, there is always this fear of racial conflict and the government may not necessarily have the power to control all the media of expression available. As such, it is up to the individual to practise self-disciplinary and to take up actions deemed to be benefitial to society as a whole. However, Szilagyi's view should be adopted in preferance to Singer's because Singapore had already face a racial riot once in 1964 and the result of it was disasterous. No one knows exactly what would happen to Singapore if another similar event was to occur at this point of time when Singapore is just starting to reap the benefits of a source based economy. It may lead to economic crisis due to the lack of investors faith in Singapore or even something worse, such as a civil war. Since the consequences of the abusing of freedom of expression hold a great threat to Singapore's welfare, a safer method like the instilling of social responsibility in Singaporeans as brought up by Szilagyi should be adopted instead.

Death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a murder.

The implementation of law must be followed up by an efficient punishment system. The purpose of that is not just for bringing the criminals to justice but also, to act as a deterrent so that others would not follow their footstep. Extreme punishments aim at maximising this purpose and include capital punishments which are only used when criminals attempted murder, treason or other serious crimes involving the welfare of the victim. Example includes hanging, lethal injection, electric chair and gas chamber. However, are these extreme punishments lawfully justified? Does it make sense to simply punish criminals with equal brutality and cruelty and deny them the right of living? The existence of such harsh punishments had started a series of disputes that question the liability for its use.

Firstly, although the death penalty might not be doing justice to the criminal, stripping him of the right to live, it is certainly doing so for the victim's family. Who else would be able to understand the feeling of losing someone unless they are the people closest to that person. Who would answer for the emotional scar left on the victim's family and bear the psychological aftermath. Only by convicting the criminal to the death penalty would the family's suffering be alleviated. Furthermore, death penalty also serves a much more important function, that is to deter further identical cases from happening. Seeing what other criminals may define as a martyr falling to the hands of the law would certainly hinder them from committing the same crimes. Potential criminals knowing how the law would deal with them if they do commit a serious crime would also consider their next step.

When a criminal is trialed for court, it would usually take the court a long period of time before a death row is ordered and during this long period, the criminal would be placed inside a cell. Inside the cell, all his daily necessities would be catered for, such as food and proper sanitation and the criminal continue to live, isolated from the outside world which is often a harsh stressful place to be in. People argue that the criminal is living on the taxpayers money and hence, oppose the death penalty. In addition, the way death penalties are carried out are often gruesome. These methods not only cause death but also inflict an unbearable amount of pain onto the convicts before dying. For example, the electric chair fires kilo volts into the convict; the power of it almost identical to that of lightning. Convict ends up dying with blood spilling out of his mouth and eyes pop out. Another example is in Florida, USA in 2006 whereby a lethal injection gone wrong. Angel Nieves Diaz endured 30 plus minutes of suffering before dying instead of the usual 15 minutes. He also endured another doze of fatal chemicals during his wait for death. People believe that even as law offenders, they still deserve the right to die in grace. Moreover, there are often cases whereby there are miscarriages of justice and innocent suspects are trialed to death. The death penalty is an irreversible process and as the saying goes "risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one". Who would bear the agony and sorrow of the death innocents' families? Lighter methods like rehabilitation that give convicts a second chance are also more favoured as people become more educated.

In conclusion, I believe that death penalty should be retained as it do serve as a major stop sign to potential criminals. However, perhaps the methods of death conviction should be reconsidered such that it would end the criminals' lives almost instantaneously instead of putting them through the unnecessary suffering when there is not enough time for regrets, not say repentance.

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is unnecessary/necessary.

Censorship has existed since the beginning of monarchy and its purpose still remains the same. It is a tool which the authorities used to suppress what the media showcases to its audience and to control what they actually see or hear. This is often done for the good of the audience. Although censorship may sound positive, in today's society, its existence is a controversial issue.

Firstly, let us look at what censorship exactly censors. Censorship applies to all that may induce negative moral values to its audience. This includes violence, nudity, sensitive issues such as races and religions. Through censorship, it helps to protect the audience, mainly the young from materials that may not suit their maturity. For instance, imagine a five year old child exposed to violence such as blood and gore. What he knows about blood is limited, perhaps just the fact that bleeding equals to pain. Being exposed to a whole pool of blood would not only horrify him, it would also affect the child psychiologically with the images continuously flashing back in his mind. Censorship also helps to lower tension so as to reduce the outbreaks of riots since no negative messages get across. This is particulary important in Singapore which is a multi-racial country. The different racial groups would certainly not tolerate negative racist remarks about them being publicised around through the media. Hence, from another perspective, censorship helps to protect national interest and maintain peace.

However, there are people who strongly believe that censorship is not necessary. They find that the media should expose people to reality instead of hiding the ugly truth from them and even if censorship is practised, there may be other sources available. In fact, the consequences would be far worse as the other sources available may have much more information available that the media do not possess. By exposing people to negative things and to have someone educate them at the same time, it would make us stronger and see the world from another perspective. Furthermore, today societies emphasize on freedom of expression and no matter how cruel, gory, disgusting the artist, writers or directors want to portray his work of art, we should not censor it as a show of respect to their talent.

I personally believe that censorship should be present but it should not be overly practised. Frequently, censorships ruin the message that ought to be delivered. For example, although gory images are disgusting, it actually sends a clear-cut message across to the people. As what the saying suggests: "A picture says a thousand words."Self-censorship should be practised instead as only through that would people know how to control themselves. If we restrict people too much, there will be this human instinct that would drive them to know more. This instinct is curiosity. Curiosity kills the cat; people would resort to almost anything if they are overly curious and that would lead to further social issues instead. Hence, censorship is necessary but it would only serve its purpose if there is a limit to it.

Media

When we were young, we used to think that the media is a reliable source of information. However, as we grow older, we tend to realise that that is not so true. The media serves many purposes, among which includes informing but that is not the main purpose for its existence. The media actually possesses the power to introduce new subjects, be it sensitive issues or not, persuade its audience and even promote propaganda. Propaganda means the spreading of ideas and information, most of the time being untrue or biased, with the intention to influence its targetted audience.

Based on the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", we can see the media attempts at promoting propaganda. Most of the information that was opened for the public tend to be one-sided and non-factual, solely for the reason to encourage people to support the war. In this scenerio, most of the Americans, the intended audience, knew nothing about the ugly truth behind the war. They knew not that the damage caused by the Americans to Iraq is far worse than what Saddam Hussein ever did in his life. This is an irony considering that the reason for war was to stop further devastation to Iraq. Americans also do not realise that there was an ulterior motive as well, which was the desire to own Iraq's oil.

Hencefore, I conclude that media actually has the ability to alter information available to the public, the information be it either factual or completely false in an attempt to change people's mindset over the subject.