Though mercy and justice seem to be contradicting terms, I think that mercy and justice can co-exist.
Justice is enacted in court to bring about impartialness, fairness and equality to the human race, and in turn, to achieve a better well-being of the society. For example, convicts and felons are penalized and jailed to deter them from doing illegal activities again, and at the same time, allowing people to live safely and peacefully. However, it must be recognized that justice itself in court is merely a set of regulations that is determined by human race for humans themselves to abide to, which is formal and contrived, strict and unforgiving and inflexible. This set of rule, or justice, also functions as a way for the accusation party or the victim to have a chance to revenge on the prosecuted.
However, why do we still see examples of a party that is obviously wrong, being alleviated from the sufferings and punishments he ought to face when justice is enacted, since the rules in court are done by the book and condemning?
This is no doubt because the divine virtue of mercy influenced the accusation party’s final decision, thus having justice and mercy both displayed in court. Mercy, the kind human nature of forgiveness and sympathy, eases the punishments that the prosecuted ought to face, and it could indeed exist together with justice.
One example would be the Iranian acid attacker, who corroded a female’s facial features by spraying concentrated acid on the victim’s face. He was subjected to a punishment which allowed the victim to spray acid back on the man’s face, basing on the court rule “Qesas”, which in English is the rule for “an eye for an eye”. However, he was, in the end, pardoned by the victim, because the victim could not bear to destroy another’s face by empathizing with his state.
In this example, justice is shown when the victim was allowed to exact revenge on the attacker, since the court permits this act as legal and thus letting her earn the opportunity of getting her fairness and rights back. If she does so, both parties would be equal and at quits. However, the victim did not do this because she was merciful. She could not bear to do this cruel act. Therefore, the fact that the court gave the opportunity for the victim to revenge is enacting justice, but mercy is at the same time seen, since the victim did not practice the action.
In conclusion, this example shows that justice could indeed co-exist in mercy, since justice and mercy are two independent things. I feel that the reason behind the conventional way of thinking that justice could not co-exist with mercy is because mercy is rarely seen in court, since there are rarely any cases in which the accusation party would be merciful. If not, it is because the news that we read in our daily lives are mainly about the prosecuted committing a grave mistake, in which mercy itself could not alleviate the sufferings of the prosecuted since the prosecuted might pose even greater harm and damage to the society. And I shall once again reiterate that mercy and justice are totally two different things, and there should not be any misconceptions that mercy could not co-exist with justice.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
2a) What do you think is Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think that Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is quite complicated – he depicted Shylock as a standard caricature of what Elizabethan audiences expected to see, a cruel and bloodthirsty devil incarnate. Yet, Shylock’s personality is exceedingly powerful and strong, being revealed as a resilient Jew who stood solely against the dominating and discriminating Christian, and not entirely exposing his vile, cunning and astute side, but also, with a touch on his poor and miserable side, arousing our feelings of sympathy, indignant and perhaps a little of respect when seeing his unfair and unjust treatment.
If Shakespeare was like any other playwright during the extremely anti-Semitic Elizabethan era, he would have displayed Shylock completely as evil, menacing and avaricious man, with no virtues whatsoever. However, in The Merchant of Venice, he actually tried to portray Shylock as a more acceptable person, since nobody is perfect, and similarly, nobody would have no virtues, thus showing that Shakespeare’s understanding of Jews could not be explicated with simply a word “cruel”. Before dramatizing this play, I think that Shakespeare crawled around in under the skin of Jews to try to comprehend the thoughts that are trickling in their mind, so as to be able to write a more all-rounded and non-opinionated play.
For example, in the story, Shylock, a representative for Jew, stood up strongly and proudly for Judaism, and tried to defend the rights of his religion against the Christians, who is the majority of the population then. One good instance is Shylock’s monologue, with him crying indignantly for being subjected at, “He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” From this example, we could see actually see slight effort put in by Shakespeare to protect the rights of Jews, helping them to convey the voices of their heart. By expressing the point of view of the Jews, Shakespeare made use of Shylock’s mouth to reason that Jews are not different from Christians, and they should not be discriminated against. Thus, this shows that Shakespeare might not be simply criticizing how merciless and heartless Jews are, as he is, at the same time suggesting that Jews might not be downright bad; and, at the same time, through these plays which many common folks and peasants watch, Shakespeare's aim might be trying to influence these Elizabethan folks to stop discriminating against Jews, though not explicitly showing the perils that might bring across by anti-Semitism.
But if he was indeed trying to show the virtues of Jews, why did he even make Shylock face a severe consequence for opposing the dominating Christians? I could suggest two possible reasons to this question. Firstly, it might be due to Shakespeare’s own belief that Jews should be persecuted, and they should be responsible for their own actions of going against them Christians; thus, my previous explanation that Shakespeare might be trying to portray the good side of Jews would be nullified. However, it might also be possible that Shakespeare is still trying to improve Jews’ reputation in Christians’ eyes, but he own stand weakened to what majority thinks, and thus giving Shylock a grim price to pay. Perhaps, he was also afraid that if he made Shylock win over the Christians, there might be pandemonium and chaos among people, for letting Jews win in the end is deemed unreasonable and unwonted, and he himself might have to face grave consequences.
There is one thing we know for sure, that is, Shylock is symbolic for Jews. However, what was Shakespeare’s intention for creating this representative for Jews? This would be left for the reader to interpret, since the mystery a few thousand years ago could not be uncovered, but for myself, I would rather think that the reason is that Shakespeare wants to abolish discrimination, and that through these plays, Shakespeare is making a baby step to a fair and just world.
If Shakespeare was like any other playwright during the extremely anti-Semitic Elizabethan era, he would have displayed Shylock completely as evil, menacing and avaricious man, with no virtues whatsoever. However, in The Merchant of Venice, he actually tried to portray Shylock as a more acceptable person, since nobody is perfect, and similarly, nobody would have no virtues, thus showing that Shakespeare’s understanding of Jews could not be explicated with simply a word “cruel”. Before dramatizing this play, I think that Shakespeare crawled around in under the skin of Jews to try to comprehend the thoughts that are trickling in their mind, so as to be able to write a more all-rounded and non-opinionated play.
For example, in the story, Shylock, a representative for Jew, stood up strongly and proudly for Judaism, and tried to defend the rights of his religion against the Christians, who is the majority of the population then. One good instance is Shylock’s monologue, with him crying indignantly for being subjected at, “He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” From this example, we could see actually see slight effort put in by Shakespeare to protect the rights of Jews, helping them to convey the voices of their heart. By expressing the point of view of the Jews, Shakespeare made use of Shylock’s mouth to reason that Jews are not different from Christians, and they should not be discriminated against. Thus, this shows that Shakespeare might not be simply criticizing how merciless and heartless Jews are, as he is, at the same time suggesting that Jews might not be downright bad; and, at the same time, through these plays which many common folks and peasants watch, Shakespeare's aim might be trying to influence these Elizabethan folks to stop discriminating against Jews, though not explicitly showing the perils that might bring across by anti-Semitism.
But if he was indeed trying to show the virtues of Jews, why did he even make Shylock face a severe consequence for opposing the dominating Christians? I could suggest two possible reasons to this question. Firstly, it might be due to Shakespeare’s own belief that Jews should be persecuted, and they should be responsible for their own actions of going against them Christians; thus, my previous explanation that Shakespeare might be trying to portray the good side of Jews would be nullified. However, it might also be possible that Shakespeare is still trying to improve Jews’ reputation in Christians’ eyes, but he own stand weakened to what majority thinks, and thus giving Shylock a grim price to pay. Perhaps, he was also afraid that if he made Shylock win over the Christians, there might be pandemonium and chaos among people, for letting Jews win in the end is deemed unreasonable and unwonted, and he himself might have to face grave consequences.
There is one thing we know for sure, that is, Shylock is symbolic for Jews. However, what was Shakespeare’s intention for creating this representative for Jews? This would be left for the reader to interpret, since the mystery a few thousand years ago could not be uncovered, but for myself, I would rather think that the reason is that Shakespeare wants to abolish discrimination, and that through these plays, Shakespeare is making a baby step to a fair and just world.
How to Raise a Global Kid
The writer, Lennox Samuels, is trying to argue that going overseas for education is becoming a priority for parents who are determining their children’s future. Not only for Asian families, but in fact, more of Americans. From this, we not only could foresee that Asia’s education system is overtaking America’s, we also could foretell America’s status being threatened – America is facing a declination with their subtle amount of knowledge, whereas Asia is taking a lead in the world.
Indeed, this is true. Many parents are increasingly aware that Chinese Language is becoming an important language for success in businesses, since China is the rising sun, and with the ability to communicate with businessmen in China, children are sure to have a stronger foothold in the society in the future years. Thus, many families are emigrating from America to the foreign land Asia, to ensure that their children would have exposure to Chinese Language. One good example is Happy Rogers, who was the only American in her graduating class at Nanyang Primary School in Singapore. Aged 8, Happy is navigating her friendships and doing her homework entirely in Mandarin. She reasoned that fluency in Chinese is going to make her better and smarter.
However, as for the point mentioned that rapid globalization is the great future threat to American prosperity, I disagree. The writer claimed that there is better education in Asia, and thus many are going from America to Asia to seek for better schooling. Thus, America’s competitive position in the world will continue to erode, and their future livelihood and that of subsequent generations will be in jeopardy. However, in my opinion, I think that this phenomenon of going abroad for better education is not just one-sided – from America to Asia – as it is also widely acknowledged that Asian families are emigrating to America, due to their perception that western countries have a better learning environment, and that English language is vital for survival in the society. Statistics shown that 200 million Chinese schoolchildren are studying English and nearly 700,000 students from all over the world attended U.S. universities during the 2009–10 school year, with the greatest increases in kids from China and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, I feel that it is not a problem of which education system is more effective; rather, it is because China’s economy is growing stronger and more formidable, and it is increasing dominance over the world, and hence, people are shifting their priority to learning Chinese language. As a result, Americans are starting to immigrate as they understand that the best environment for learning Chinese is going to Asian countries, where Chinese is the language widely used in daily lives, no because of the better education in Asia, as claimed by the writer.
Education is the key for survival in the hectic 21st century, also wrote Lennox Samuels. The society is no longer seeking for physically fit people, but in search for intellectually smart and clever people. As the society is shifting itself from skill-intensive into a knowledge-based economy, those pays of blue-collared workers is paling in comparison with those engineers and professors. People are beginning to perceive that it takes a greater effort to develop a critical-thinking mind that is sharp and astute than to acquire a strong and muscular torso, thus the pay starts to be amended and the civilians start to adapt to ever-changing society. To be able to cultivate a shrewd and precise mind, one must turn toward education, thus education, is no doubt compulsory if one aims to excel and outshine others in the future.
Critics might reason that the pay of a professional sportsman, such as the famous footballer Messi, is much higher than those professors and company’s directors. This is no doubt true, as even those footballers in Singapore, for instance Aleksander Duric of Singapore, aged 41 this year, could even receive a pay higher than that of well-informed lecturers. However, one must still be conscious of the fact that these professional sportsmen are just the singular cases. Also, the criteria for these sportsmen to get selected into a national team are very strict. Many youngsters are aiming to get shortlisted into national teams, but many turned back in despondency, thus showing how huge the competition is and the negligible chances for one to be chosen. Thus, it could still be seen that education is still the key for survival in the 21st century, since educated have many future options, ranging from chief directors of companies to high-pay professors, unlike sportsmen.
In a nutshell, education is of increasing importance in the 21st century, and with it, China is gaining dominance in the marketing world – and, I feel that Americans are emigrating to Asia not because of better education there, but rather, it is because they are starting to take note that they could no longer simply stick to their own native language English, as their world leader status is threatened by China, thus they are learning to adapt and learn Chinese.
Indeed, this is true. Many parents are increasingly aware that Chinese Language is becoming an important language for success in businesses, since China is the rising sun, and with the ability to communicate with businessmen in China, children are sure to have a stronger foothold in the society in the future years. Thus, many families are emigrating from America to the foreign land Asia, to ensure that their children would have exposure to Chinese Language. One good example is Happy Rogers, who was the only American in her graduating class at Nanyang Primary School in Singapore. Aged 8, Happy is navigating her friendships and doing her homework entirely in Mandarin. She reasoned that fluency in Chinese is going to make her better and smarter.
However, as for the point mentioned that rapid globalization is the great future threat to American prosperity, I disagree. The writer claimed that there is better education in Asia, and thus many are going from America to Asia to seek for better schooling. Thus, America’s competitive position in the world will continue to erode, and their future livelihood and that of subsequent generations will be in jeopardy. However, in my opinion, I think that this phenomenon of going abroad for better education is not just one-sided – from America to Asia – as it is also widely acknowledged that Asian families are emigrating to America, due to their perception that western countries have a better learning environment, and that English language is vital for survival in the society. Statistics shown that 200 million Chinese schoolchildren are studying English and nearly 700,000 students from all over the world attended U.S. universities during the 2009–10 school year, with the greatest increases in kids from China and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, I feel that it is not a problem of which education system is more effective; rather, it is because China’s economy is growing stronger and more formidable, and it is increasing dominance over the world, and hence, people are shifting their priority to learning Chinese language. As a result, Americans are starting to immigrate as they understand that the best environment for learning Chinese is going to Asian countries, where Chinese is the language widely used in daily lives, no because of the better education in Asia, as claimed by the writer.
Education is the key for survival in the hectic 21st century, also wrote Lennox Samuels. The society is no longer seeking for physically fit people, but in search for intellectually smart and clever people. As the society is shifting itself from skill-intensive into a knowledge-based economy, those pays of blue-collared workers is paling in comparison with those engineers and professors. People are beginning to perceive that it takes a greater effort to develop a critical-thinking mind that is sharp and astute than to acquire a strong and muscular torso, thus the pay starts to be amended and the civilians start to adapt to ever-changing society. To be able to cultivate a shrewd and precise mind, one must turn toward education, thus education, is no doubt compulsory if one aims to excel and outshine others in the future.
Critics might reason that the pay of a professional sportsman, such as the famous footballer Messi, is much higher than those professors and company’s directors. This is no doubt true, as even those footballers in Singapore, for instance Aleksander Duric of Singapore, aged 41 this year, could even receive a pay higher than that of well-informed lecturers. However, one must still be conscious of the fact that these professional sportsmen are just the singular cases. Also, the criteria for these sportsmen to get selected into a national team are very strict. Many youngsters are aiming to get shortlisted into national teams, but many turned back in despondency, thus showing how huge the competition is and the negligible chances for one to be chosen. Thus, it could still be seen that education is still the key for survival in the 21st century, since educated have many future options, ranging from chief directors of companies to high-pay professors, unlike sportsmen.
In a nutshell, education is of increasing importance in the 21st century, and with it, China is gaining dominance in the marketing world – and, I feel that Americans are emigrating to Asia not because of better education there, but rather, it is because they are starting to take note that they could no longer simply stick to their own native language English, as their world leader status is threatened by China, thus they are learning to adapt and learn Chinese.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Comment on Janelle Lee's letter
(1) Comment on the Janelle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.
From the effectively written letter, I could see that Janelle Lee owned a critical and precise mind – what she stated and mentioned in the beautifully-written letter would simply strike home to any Singaporeans the messages it conveyed. It especially gives a sense of familiarity to us students, and perhaps also teachers.
The foremost and main point she argued was about the education of Singapore killing the interest of many students who originally had the ability to ask a simple ‘why’. I felt very sincere to this opinion, as it is what I felt to be extremely relevant to the education system here, and just a few days ago I realized that I actually might have lost the ability of inquiring. It was just after the recent release of the Integrated Humanities results, when many of the students had written one extra point for the essay thus wasting time, including me. I explained to my father about this matter, and he replied to me asking ‘why’ did we write three points instead of two, as the question required. I then answered very honestly that it was because the LOMPS we were exposed to all required us three points in order to score full marks. Then my father again asked why three points should be written for essay, and claimed that we were only memorizing and not understanding. During that time, I felt quite indignant as I felt that it was only natural for us students to follow the LOMPS and we actually had a debate.
But now, I come to think that perhaps it was really because we lack of the inquisitiveness to seek further to what appeared to be ‘the standard’. And indeed, I feel that this is the fruit of the education system in Singapore, as what we learnt was just from pure memorizing and aiming to achieve the marks we goaled. Another example is mathematics, which we only learned the rules and formulas to apply to questions, never understanding how the formulas were derived. If we asked, the answer that was usually shot back to us was ‘it is out of syllabus, and you do not need to understand it at your level’ or that ‘it might only confuse you’.
The next point this teenager brought up is the civic and moral education in Singapore. I have much less to comment about this idea, as this education is only taught in primary school. However, I honestly feel that when in primary school, this curriculum period was indeed a relaxation period to us students, and I still remembered vividly how we dreaded it to be taken away by other main subjects, and thus it brought forth to us the message that was unintended that civic and moral education was not compulsory and of no great importance. The teachers might say that it is how we treated the subject – whether we ourselves treat it seriously or not. I do not deny what they claimed, but I feel that it is the teacher’s job to ensure that students treat this subject seriously and do benefit from it. If the teacher’s attitude is not even serious and allow other teachers to take over their lessons, how do they even expect us students to put in enthusiasm when they do not even adopt a positive attitude when teaching that subject?
However, there were some points that I regarded not to be very accurate. For example, she stated that “the problem is that Singaporean youths are often not taught as individuals with separate talents, but as a collective who are all the same”. A counter example to this is the streaming program introduced by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. We learned in history that students are streamed at 9 years old according to their intelligence,at 10 to determine if the student should be put into foundational class. Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), and the examination in secondary 2 testing if the student is eligible to be placed in an IP school or Special Programme are other examples. However, let us just discuss about The Gifted Education Stream, which is reserved only for the academically and intellectually gifted. The rationale behind streaming is to allow the system to cater best to the needs of each student according to his or her academic ability, preventing a scenario where the best students are bored by a standard curriculum, and the weakest students struggle to pass. Therefore, it is not true to say that Singaporean youths are taught as a collective due to the introduction of the School Based Gifted Education.
In conclusion, I feel that this letter was really magnificent and sensational. It was really eye opening and reflected also on how we students should be like in school. I feel the same for what this teenager had mentioned, and I also hope for a better tomorrow.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
An ideal educational system – what exactly is it? Since this term has not obtained a specific definition, I would give it my own interpretation. An ideal educational system, to me, consist of academic and moral education, treating both equally important, and developing, not curbing, one’s inquisitive mind and interest, and at the same time, giving the students freedom and time yet also producing results in the exams. With so many specifications to fulfill, an ideal educational system is totally impossible, since these many terms and conditions could not possibly occur at the same time.
Firstly, treating academic and moral education on the same basis is already too high an expectation. Academic subjects are by itself numerous, thus there is simply no time to yet learn another subject. Many might say that the government could lengthen the school time, however, that is again not giving students enough freedom to do their own reading and even for relaxation.
Another problem lies within the means of developing an inquisitive mind and at the same time, producing results. The ways to develop a curious mind includes probing the students to ask more, not letting them be bounded by the marking scheme, be creative, and most importantly, enabling students to see education as a process of learning and not being overwhelmed by all the marks and results. However, these could not happen at the same time. To produce results – that is already not feasible when shaping the students’ mind into a creative and innovative one, since the worldwide examinations have marking schemes standardized. If the educational system allows students to think out of the box and not follow the marking scheme, these students would not be able to score high in examinations, since they would not bother to stick to the guideline.
Furthermore, this idea also wearies the teachers, since they need to answer to many questions not inside the syllabus, and they would need to spend too much time on topics irrelevant to the examinations. And, if students keep inquiring and the teachers busily answering those questions, the teachers would not be able to finish the syllabuses in time in order to prepare the students for the examinations. Thus, the students not only would not be able to follow the marking scheme, they also would not be able to fare well in the examinations since the lack of understanding to certain topics prevents them from exceling in the examinations.
Many might say that students would have a better future if they are exposed to more knowledge, thus, they would oppose to my opinion of saying that developing an inquisitive mind and producing results could be done together. However, one must come to think of it that if the student took an examination and scored badly due to the reasons previously stated, he would enroll for a school not so ideal, thus, hindering his success. The student would not learn as many things as those in better schools, therefore, being unable to excel in his career.
Once again, I shall reiterate that it is not possible to have an ideal educational system. Educational systems definitely have its own flaws, and some areas must be compromised depending on the schools priority. Therefore, what is being taught is the school’s decision, and the students nonetheless also have the opportunity to choose which school they would like to be in.
From the effectively written letter, I could see that Janelle Lee owned a critical and precise mind – what she stated and mentioned in the beautifully-written letter would simply strike home to any Singaporeans the messages it conveyed. It especially gives a sense of familiarity to us students, and perhaps also teachers.
The foremost and main point she argued was about the education of Singapore killing the interest of many students who originally had the ability to ask a simple ‘why’. I felt very sincere to this opinion, as it is what I felt to be extremely relevant to the education system here, and just a few days ago I realized that I actually might have lost the ability of inquiring. It was just after the recent release of the Integrated Humanities results, when many of the students had written one extra point for the essay thus wasting time, including me. I explained to my father about this matter, and he replied to me asking ‘why’ did we write three points instead of two, as the question required. I then answered very honestly that it was because the LOMPS we were exposed to all required us three points in order to score full marks. Then my father again asked why three points should be written for essay, and claimed that we were only memorizing and not understanding. During that time, I felt quite indignant as I felt that it was only natural for us students to follow the LOMPS and we actually had a debate.
But now, I come to think that perhaps it was really because we lack of the inquisitiveness to seek further to what appeared to be ‘the standard’. And indeed, I feel that this is the fruit of the education system in Singapore, as what we learnt was just from pure memorizing and aiming to achieve the marks we goaled. Another example is mathematics, which we only learned the rules and formulas to apply to questions, never understanding how the formulas were derived. If we asked, the answer that was usually shot back to us was ‘it is out of syllabus, and you do not need to understand it at your level’ or that ‘it might only confuse you’.
The next point this teenager brought up is the civic and moral education in Singapore. I have much less to comment about this idea, as this education is only taught in primary school. However, I honestly feel that when in primary school, this curriculum period was indeed a relaxation period to us students, and I still remembered vividly how we dreaded it to be taken away by other main subjects, and thus it brought forth to us the message that was unintended that civic and moral education was not compulsory and of no great importance. The teachers might say that it is how we treated the subject – whether we ourselves treat it seriously or not. I do not deny what they claimed, but I feel that it is the teacher’s job to ensure that students treat this subject seriously and do benefit from it. If the teacher’s attitude is not even serious and allow other teachers to take over their lessons, how do they even expect us students to put in enthusiasm when they do not even adopt a positive attitude when teaching that subject?
However, there were some points that I regarded not to be very accurate. For example, she stated that “the problem is that Singaporean youths are often not taught as individuals with separate talents, but as a collective who are all the same”. A counter example to this is the streaming program introduced by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. We learned in history that students are streamed at 9 years old according to their intelligence,at 10 to determine if the student should be put into foundational class. Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), and the examination in secondary 2 testing if the student is eligible to be placed in an IP school or Special Programme are other examples. However, let us just discuss about The Gifted Education Stream, which is reserved only for the academically and intellectually gifted. The rationale behind streaming is to allow the system to cater best to the needs of each student according to his or her academic ability, preventing a scenario where the best students are bored by a standard curriculum, and the weakest students struggle to pass. Therefore, it is not true to say that Singaporean youths are taught as a collective due to the introduction of the School Based Gifted Education.
In conclusion, I feel that this letter was really magnificent and sensational. It was really eye opening and reflected also on how we students should be like in school. I feel the same for what this teenager had mentioned, and I also hope for a better tomorrow.
(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.
An ideal educational system – what exactly is it? Since this term has not obtained a specific definition, I would give it my own interpretation. An ideal educational system, to me, consist of academic and moral education, treating both equally important, and developing, not curbing, one’s inquisitive mind and interest, and at the same time, giving the students freedom and time yet also producing results in the exams. With so many specifications to fulfill, an ideal educational system is totally impossible, since these many terms and conditions could not possibly occur at the same time.
Firstly, treating academic and moral education on the same basis is already too high an expectation. Academic subjects are by itself numerous, thus there is simply no time to yet learn another subject. Many might say that the government could lengthen the school time, however, that is again not giving students enough freedom to do their own reading and even for relaxation.
Another problem lies within the means of developing an inquisitive mind and at the same time, producing results. The ways to develop a curious mind includes probing the students to ask more, not letting them be bounded by the marking scheme, be creative, and most importantly, enabling students to see education as a process of learning and not being overwhelmed by all the marks and results. However, these could not happen at the same time. To produce results – that is already not feasible when shaping the students’ mind into a creative and innovative one, since the worldwide examinations have marking schemes standardized. If the educational system allows students to think out of the box and not follow the marking scheme, these students would not be able to score high in examinations, since they would not bother to stick to the guideline.
Furthermore, this idea also wearies the teachers, since they need to answer to many questions not inside the syllabus, and they would need to spend too much time on topics irrelevant to the examinations. And, if students keep inquiring and the teachers busily answering those questions, the teachers would not be able to finish the syllabuses in time in order to prepare the students for the examinations. Thus, the students not only would not be able to follow the marking scheme, they also would not be able to fare well in the examinations since the lack of understanding to certain topics prevents them from exceling in the examinations.
Many might say that students would have a better future if they are exposed to more knowledge, thus, they would oppose to my opinion of saying that developing an inquisitive mind and producing results could be done together. However, one must come to think of it that if the student took an examination and scored badly due to the reasons previously stated, he would enroll for a school not so ideal, thus, hindering his success. The student would not learn as many things as those in better schools, therefore, being unable to excel in his career.
Once again, I shall reiterate that it is not possible to have an ideal educational system. Educational systems definitely have its own flaws, and some areas must be compromised depending on the schools priority. Therefore, what is being taught is the school’s decision, and the students nonetheless also have the opportunity to choose which school they would like to be in.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Water: Commodity or Human Rights?
Water is one of the most valuable resources on earth. However, many Singaporeans, even if they claim to know the needs to conserve water, or maybe some who are still unconscious of the limited amount of precious water, are still wasting this priceless resource. Ministers have for a long time, stretching banners to convey the importance of water conservation to civilians, yet people still use water so extravagantly and excessively that the world’s amount of water is being consumed away at an incredible rate. Notwithstanding this, should water really become a commodity to deliver the importance of water to people instead of being treated as a human right? I think that water should indeed be treated as a commodity.
The nature of Nature is cruel and cold-blooded, having the strongest to prevail and the weakest to diminish and die out, thus treating water as a commodity is not a problem. In other words, the law of club and fang justifies this belief. The rich, getting their fair share of water because they have the ability to earn sufficient money thus being able to provide for themselves; whereas the poor, incapable to earn themselves a living, could not afford for water and thus dying of thirst. Therefore, Nature, being harsh and punishing, must be same as how she treats other animals, by only allowing the richest to sustain on and dominate the earth, having control and power over this necessity of living, and letting the poorer to perish on our very world. This is a bit of exaggeration, but it is quite how the world would be like when precious necessities of living is diminishing.
Many might say that humans are creatures of emotion, and that by letting the poor die and 'discriminating against' them is truly unacceptable in our society. However, policies have already been implemented to subsidize those of more needs unprovided for. Thus, the situation would not seem so cold and cruel, so wild and uncivilized as I have previously elaborated about how people would die on earth. The necessities of others would be readily taken care of, and they, and us people, would not need to fret and worry about how these poorer and weaker would carry on their lives.
Furthermore, by measuring water using economic means and treating it as a commodity would solve the problem that ministers had tried to solve, which is, to ensure that people treasure water. People treat money if not but as one of the most important things of earth, since money is what businesses are about, what jobs are for and most importantly, how meals are settled. Thus, people would by all means figure out how to be thrifty and ways to save money, thus, by treating water as a commodity would let the painful truth of water being limited dawn on human beings, therefore, people turning to become more sensible and attempt to save every drip and drop of water.
In a nutshell, I would like to reiterate that water should be treated as a commodity. It would bring forth to us the biggest benefit of human conserving water through exposing the most shocking truth that water is limited to us. Many might say that it is unjust by letting the poorer suffer a miserable death, however, this is too justified by the law of the Jungle, and that subsidies are also provided for the needy. As humans are a part of the nature and environment, we should not be treated differently as how nature works, and on the other hand, getting to people that everything has a cost and effect, especially those richer. Seeing to the point that the poorer are subsidized but the richer are not, I conclude that the main aim of treating water as a commodity is actually trying to get the richer to treasure water, as it is mostly the richer that takes these precious resources for granted, thus wasting them. And water, not only has an economic cost now, losing it would also have a drastic impact on the environment.
The nature of Nature is cruel and cold-blooded, having the strongest to prevail and the weakest to diminish and die out, thus treating water as a commodity is not a problem. In other words, the law of club and fang justifies this belief. The rich, getting their fair share of water because they have the ability to earn sufficient money thus being able to provide for themselves; whereas the poor, incapable to earn themselves a living, could not afford for water and thus dying of thirst. Therefore, Nature, being harsh and punishing, must be same as how she treats other animals, by only allowing the richest to sustain on and dominate the earth, having control and power over this necessity of living, and letting the poorer to perish on our very world. This is a bit of exaggeration, but it is quite how the world would be like when precious necessities of living is diminishing.
Many might say that humans are creatures of emotion, and that by letting the poor die and 'discriminating against' them is truly unacceptable in our society. However, policies have already been implemented to subsidize those of more needs unprovided for. Thus, the situation would not seem so cold and cruel, so wild and uncivilized as I have previously elaborated about how people would die on earth. The necessities of others would be readily taken care of, and they, and us people, would not need to fret and worry about how these poorer and weaker would carry on their lives.
Furthermore, by measuring water using economic means and treating it as a commodity would solve the problem that ministers had tried to solve, which is, to ensure that people treasure water. People treat money if not but as one of the most important things of earth, since money is what businesses are about, what jobs are for and most importantly, how meals are settled. Thus, people would by all means figure out how to be thrifty and ways to save money, thus, by treating water as a commodity would let the painful truth of water being limited dawn on human beings, therefore, people turning to become more sensible and attempt to save every drip and drop of water.
In a nutshell, I would like to reiterate that water should be treated as a commodity. It would bring forth to us the biggest benefit of human conserving water through exposing the most shocking truth that water is limited to us. Many might say that it is unjust by letting the poorer suffer a miserable death, however, this is too justified by the law of the Jungle, and that subsidies are also provided for the needy. As humans are a part of the nature and environment, we should not be treated differently as how nature works, and on the other hand, getting to people that everything has a cost and effect, especially those richer. Seeing to the point that the poorer are subsidized but the richer are not, I conclude that the main aim of treating water as a commodity is actually trying to get the richer to treasure water, as it is mostly the richer that takes these precious resources for granted, thus wasting them. And water, not only has an economic cost now, losing it would also have a drastic impact on the environment.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Term 3 Week 1 (Blogging Assignment)
Singapore prohibits employers who do not give their maids rest days, and these irresponsible employers would face legal consequences if they do not abide to this law. However, veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore, which sparked off many disputes and controversial opinions voiced out by Singaporeans. In my opinion, initially, some employers restrict the freedom of their maids too much, by only giving them 1 rest day per month, however, should it reach the extent that maids have off-days weekly?
Maids are hired to take care of the family, in circumstances such as when the independent adults go working on a daily basis and lack of time to take care of their needs or when there are disabled or particularly needy members in the house. Maids do most of the housework mostly on weekdays, including cooking, babysitting and sweeping whatever mansion that the employer owns. They do numerous amount of blue-collared work, and they are paid for their efforts to maintain the family. Many employers might think that maids are lowly, unworthy of their respect, of a lower 'caste' or even treating them as slaves and abusing them, thus, not treating them as humans and not giving them 'sufficient' liberty.
However, maids are people, and they have life too! They are not generated by unlimited amount of battery, and they are not robots. I feel that they should be 'freed' during weekends, when employers be staying at home, and bond with their fellow friends, so as to relax and have a balanced lifestyle. As long as their work attitude will not be affected negatively, I feel that there is no problem in giving them the freedom to have their off-days weekly. Instead, I actually think that by meeting up with friends might even improve their work attitude.
Firstly, by working for long hours daily, maids might feel weary and tired, and seeing that their off-days are a month ahead, they might be depressed and despondent, thus being unable to perform to their personal best due to low spirits. Furthermore, this weariness might brood unhappiness against their employers for giving them insufficient off-days, and their moodiness might lead to defiance against their employers' orders, thus ruining their employer-employee relationship and might lead to even worse and dire consequences. Therefore, by offering time to befriend people weekly would give them an opportunity to speak their sorrows out, and at the same time receive some consolations and encouragements from their friends. Furthermore, this would also allow them to look forward to a day that is closer, thus making days seem shorter and improving their work attitude.
In conclusion, I think that maids should indeed be given off-days weekly to rest. By doing so, not only do maids benefit from it, employers would also profit from it, since they would not need to face the sulky face of their maid and though work days for maids are less, they would be more efficient and productive. Thus, in a nutshell, giving maids to rest weekly would lead to a win-win situation for both parties.
Maids are hired to take care of the family, in circumstances such as when the independent adults go working on a daily basis and lack of time to take care of their needs or when there are disabled or particularly needy members in the house. Maids do most of the housework mostly on weekdays, including cooking, babysitting and sweeping whatever mansion that the employer owns. They do numerous amount of blue-collared work, and they are paid for their efforts to maintain the family. Many employers might think that maids are lowly, unworthy of their respect, of a lower 'caste' or even treating them as slaves and abusing them, thus, not treating them as humans and not giving them 'sufficient' liberty.
However, maids are people, and they have life too! They are not generated by unlimited amount of battery, and they are not robots. I feel that they should be 'freed' during weekends, when employers be staying at home, and bond with their fellow friends, so as to relax and have a balanced lifestyle. As long as their work attitude will not be affected negatively, I feel that there is no problem in giving them the freedom to have their off-days weekly. Instead, I actually think that by meeting up with friends might even improve their work attitude.
Firstly, by working for long hours daily, maids might feel weary and tired, and seeing that their off-days are a month ahead, they might be depressed and despondent, thus being unable to perform to their personal best due to low spirits. Furthermore, this weariness might brood unhappiness against their employers for giving them insufficient off-days, and their moodiness might lead to defiance against their employers' orders, thus ruining their employer-employee relationship and might lead to even worse and dire consequences. Therefore, by offering time to befriend people weekly would give them an opportunity to speak their sorrows out, and at the same time receive some consolations and encouragements from their friends. Furthermore, this would also allow them to look forward to a day that is closer, thus making days seem shorter and improving their work attitude.
In conclusion, I think that maids should indeed be given off-days weekly to rest. By doing so, not only do maids benefit from it, employers would also profit from it, since they would not need to face the sulky face of their maid and though work days for maids are less, they would be more efficient and productive. Thus, in a nutshell, giving maids to rest weekly would lead to a win-win situation for both parties.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Home Based Learning
Rainbow Death
America did not foresee
Green, pink, purple and other colors death potpourri!
Expecting others to pay a high price.
Now thinking twice?
Toll on the innocent and unborn.
Omnipotent and disregarding who will mourn.
Reflective about all the illness, birth defects and prematurely dead.
All the deceit continues to spread.
Nefariously America led astray -
Generations untold WILL pay -
Execrable effects of agent orange spray!
Hubert Wilson
Task 1:
Although this poem depicts the war that happened in the past, Hubert's poem "Rainbow Death" shows a modern day ingredient of warfare, Agent Orange. Agent Orange is a code name for herbicide and defoliant used by the US military in its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. Hence, from this source of information, we can tell that the poem that Hubert wrote was about the Vietnam War. It reminds us that the war may not be over even when it is over.
Hubert Wilson is a Vietnam War veteran who served in the United States Air Force security service. Together with a dozen or so intelligence school graduates, they prepped for about 14 months at Kelly AFB in San Antonio, Texas. They were sent to Vietnam or other places in Southeast Asia in 1970. About half of them ended up in the 6924th Security Squadron, Da Nang, which is an Agent Orange hotspot. The rest of them were assigned to Shemya Island, Alaska along with the 6984th Security Squadron, which was a far more contaminated environment than Da Nang. After staying there for about 18 years, he started to have unexplained headaches and limb pains. His central nervous system radically deteriorated with Parkinsonian type tremors, severe headaches, progessive limb pains etc. No doctors have been able to diagnose the illness. Since his brain is still functioning moderately well although he has mobility issues, he has decided to turn to writing.
Agent Orange is a code name for a herbicide and defoliant used by the US military in its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam war. From 1962 to 1971, Agent Orange was the most widely used in the herbicidal warfare program. During the production, dioxins were produced as contaminant, which caused numerous health problems to millions of people exposed to it, thus reminding us readers that war is still not over.
This poem speaks of a modern day ingredient of warfare that has caused appalling death and suffering, not only to the Vietnamese, but even the USA themselves, which means both sides are affected. Agent Orange is contaminated with TCDD, which is very dangerous. During the war, about 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, with 500,000 children born with birth defects.
http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/2010warpoetry.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://y09hci0406.blogspot.com/
http://literatureisnotabore.blogspot.com/2010/05/rainbow-death-analysis.html
http://mon-aime.blogspot.com/2010/05/analysis-of-rainbow-death.html
Task 2:
1. Point of View
This poem is written from the point of view of an American soldier, who had experienced the Vietnam War personally. Hubert Wilson experienced the war and the pain of war, thus this written poem is a primary source which could be biased.
2. Situation and Setting
The setting of the poem is during the Vietnam war, where America had resorted to using huge amounts of "Agent Orange" spray. The effects of the “Agent Orange”, which are herbicide and defoliant, have lasted until today.
3. Language/ Diction
Metaphor/ alliteration – Pink, purple and other colors death potpourri. The repetition of the sound of the short and harsh “P” leads your imagination to the blast of explosives, creating the setting mood of the poem, which was Vietnam War.
“Potpourri” used in this context is also a metaphor. The definition of potpourri is a mixture of dried petals and spices placed in a bowl to perfume a room or
a mixture or medley of things. Thus, in my opinion, it is referring to American army attacking North Vietnam by producing herbicide and defoliant of different colours and components to destroy Vietnam's forests, which were hiding places and strongholds for the Viet Cong.
Rhythm – Between the line and the subsequent one. Rhythm allows the reader to read more fluently in such a manner that seems to link the whole poem up and to be read in one voice.
(e.g. foresee/ potpourri, price/ twice, unborn/ mourn, dead/ spread and astray/ pay/ spray) Use of capital letters – WILL “Pink”, “purple” and “potpourri” are alliteration. The word “WILL” is written in capital letters to stress the importance of the result of the Americans’ actions, which is generations untold “WILL” pay. It catches the eye of the reader so when the reader reads the word, they would tend to hold and drag the word longer, seemingly criticizing America.
4. Personal Response
War is does not just last for the period of time, because there are aftermaths to the war. In the context of the poem, it is the “Agent Orange” that had aftereffects on the people such as "illness, birth defects and prematurely dead" and not to forget Cancer. The future generations will also be nonetheless affected and will suffer the punishment of their forefathers. Based on my knowledge of other wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had later effects on Japanese such as radiation that led to Cancer. Thus, this shows that war is indeed destructive to the society and we should do our best to promote peace and prosperity between countries and prevent having wars, as it only hurts innocent lives. In order to understand more on this poem, the best thing we could do is to read up on the background of the poem, since the background is in war and we could not travel back in time to suffer the ordeal and I am sure too that no one would be willing to torture themselves. Definitely, those who had endured wars surely had stronger feelings on this matter, thus being able to appreciate the poem more.
America did not foresee
Green, pink, purple and other colors death potpourri!
Expecting others to pay a high price.
Now thinking twice?
Toll on the innocent and unborn.
Omnipotent and disregarding who will mourn.
Reflective about all the illness, birth defects and prematurely dead.
All the deceit continues to spread.
Nefariously America led astray -
Generations untold WILL pay -
Execrable effects of agent orange spray!
Hubert Wilson
Task 1:
Although this poem depicts the war that happened in the past, Hubert's poem "Rainbow Death" shows a modern day ingredient of warfare, Agent Orange. Agent Orange is a code name for herbicide and defoliant used by the US military in its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. Hence, from this source of information, we can tell that the poem that Hubert wrote was about the Vietnam War. It reminds us that the war may not be over even when it is over.
Hubert Wilson is a Vietnam War veteran who served in the United States Air Force security service. Together with a dozen or so intelligence school graduates, they prepped for about 14 months at Kelly AFB in San Antonio, Texas. They were sent to Vietnam or other places in Southeast Asia in 1970. About half of them ended up in the 6924th Security Squadron, Da Nang, which is an Agent Orange hotspot. The rest of them were assigned to Shemya Island, Alaska along with the 6984th Security Squadron, which was a far more contaminated environment than Da Nang. After staying there for about 18 years, he started to have unexplained headaches and limb pains. His central nervous system radically deteriorated with Parkinsonian type tremors, severe headaches, progessive limb pains etc. No doctors have been able to diagnose the illness. Since his brain is still functioning moderately well although he has mobility issues, he has decided to turn to writing.
Agent Orange is a code name for a herbicide and defoliant used by the US military in its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam war. From 1962 to 1971, Agent Orange was the most widely used in the herbicidal warfare program. During the production, dioxins were produced as contaminant, which caused numerous health problems to millions of people exposed to it, thus reminding us readers that war is still not over.
This poem speaks of a modern day ingredient of warfare that has caused appalling death and suffering, not only to the Vietnamese, but even the USA themselves, which means both sides are affected. Agent Orange is contaminated with TCDD, which is very dangerous. During the war, about 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, with 500,000 children born with birth defects.
http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/2010warpoetry.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
http://y09hci0406.blogspot.com/
http://literatureisnotabore.blogspot.com/2010/05/rainbow-death-analysis.html
http://mon-aime.blogspot.com/2010/05/analysis-of-rainbow-death.html
Task 2:
1. Point of View
This poem is written from the point of view of an American soldier, who had experienced the Vietnam War personally. Hubert Wilson experienced the war and the pain of war, thus this written poem is a primary source which could be biased.
2. Situation and Setting
The setting of the poem is during the Vietnam war, where America had resorted to using huge amounts of "Agent Orange" spray. The effects of the “Agent Orange”, which are herbicide and defoliant, have lasted until today.
3. Language/ Diction
Metaphor/ alliteration – Pink, purple and other colors death potpourri. The repetition of the sound of the short and harsh “P” leads your imagination to the blast of explosives, creating the setting mood of the poem, which was Vietnam War.
“Potpourri” used in this context is also a metaphor. The definition of potpourri is a mixture of dried petals and spices placed in a bowl to perfume a room or
a mixture or medley of things. Thus, in my opinion, it is referring to American army attacking North Vietnam by producing herbicide and defoliant of different colours and components to destroy Vietnam's forests, which were hiding places and strongholds for the Viet Cong.
Rhythm – Between the line and the subsequent one. Rhythm allows the reader to read more fluently in such a manner that seems to link the whole poem up and to be read in one voice.
(e.g. foresee/ potpourri, price/ twice, unborn/ mourn, dead/ spread and astray/ pay/ spray) Use of capital letters – WILL “Pink”, “purple” and “potpourri” are alliteration. The word “WILL” is written in capital letters to stress the importance of the result of the Americans’ actions, which is generations untold “WILL” pay. It catches the eye of the reader so when the reader reads the word, they would tend to hold and drag the word longer, seemingly criticizing America.
4. Personal Response
War is does not just last for the period of time, because there are aftermaths to the war. In the context of the poem, it is the “Agent Orange” that had aftereffects on the people such as "illness, birth defects and prematurely dead" and not to forget Cancer. The future generations will also be nonetheless affected and will suffer the punishment of their forefathers. Based on my knowledge of other wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had later effects on Japanese such as radiation that led to Cancer. Thus, this shows that war is indeed destructive to the society and we should do our best to promote peace and prosperity between countries and prevent having wars, as it only hurts innocent lives. In order to understand more on this poem, the best thing we could do is to read up on the background of the poem, since the background is in war and we could not travel back in time to suffer the ordeal and I am sure too that no one would be willing to torture themselves. Definitely, those who had endured wars surely had stronger feelings on this matter, thus being able to appreciate the poem more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)